Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8994/1998 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8994 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=============================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================================
BALVANTBHAI
BHIKHABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UM SHASTRI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 31/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the Government
Resolution dated 17th October 1988 and to regulerize the
services of the petitioner on the post of Watchman in the
respondent-Department as well as directing the respondents to pay
arrears of wages to the petitioner on the basis of principle of
equal pay for equal work and restraining the respondents from
terminating the service of the petitioner.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as
Watchman i.e. as Class-IV daily wager, since the year 1981 under the
respondent-Department. The nature of work performed by the
petitioner is permanent in nature. However, inspite of repeated
requests made by the petitioner, neither his service is regularized
nor is he employed on permanent basis. The action of the respondent
in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and not giving
regular pay-scale to the petitioner is bad in law and therefore,
present petition.
Heard
the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant record. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
clear that the appointment of the petitioner is not a regular one
and not done in accordance with the rules and regulations.
In
the context of the present case, it would be relevant to refer to a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1,
wherein, it has been held that Courts should not issue directions
with regard to absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance
of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad-hod employees
appointed / recruited and continued for long in public employment
dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment, unless the
recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the
constitutional scheme.
Looking
to the facts of the present case and the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in the above cited decision, the present petition does
not deserve to be entertained.
In
view of the above, the present petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top