Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4859/1998 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4859 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 ?
=============================================================
GOMTIBEN
DHANABHAI & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RD RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR JK SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the action of respondents of not
regularizing the petitioners’ services despite 18 years’ continuous
service as well as not granting benefits under Dolatbhai Parmar
Circular and granting all such benefits to their juniors and
threatening to terminate the petitioners’ services and granting all
consequential reliefs, including regularization with all service
benefits.
During
the course of hearing, Mr.J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, has relied upon the contents of the affidavit-in-reply, and
has submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court (Coram : K.S. Jhaveri, J)
rendered on 30th July 2004 in
Special Civil Application No.7122 of 1991 and other allied
petitions. It would be beneficial to reproduce the said
decision as under :
1. In all the above petitions the prayers are to
direct the respondents to regularise their services on
their respective posts and to pay the consequential
benefits.
2. In these petitions the petitioners alleged that
they have been working since last many years, but are
deprived of the benefits and status of the regular
employees of the respondent Department. The further
grievance is that the petitioners are not granted salary
on the basis of “equal pay for equal work”. The
petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the
Government Resolution dated 22.12.1999 and to declare the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is applicable to
the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Resolution dated 17.10-1988 was made applicable
to the daily wagers who are working for maintenance and
repairs of construction in various departments of the
Government including the Forests and Environment
Department and therefore the same benefits should be
extended to the petitioners also.
4. Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Additional
Advocate General pointed out that the issue involved in
these petitions has been decided by a Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers
and Forests Workers Union Vs. State of Gujarat, reported
in 2004 (2) GlH 302. In the said decision this Court has
held that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is
applicable to the daily wagers of the Forest and
Environment Department engaged in the work of maintenance
and repairs of constructions in that Department and not
to the daily wagers engaged in other types of work in
that department. The question no.3 referred to the Full
Bench in this regard along with its answer is reproduced
as under:
“Que-3 Whether the petitioners or similarly
situated employees of the Forest Department are
entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution
dated 17-10-1988?”
Ans-3 The Government Resolution dated 17th
October 1988 is applicable to the daily wagers of
the Forest & Environment Department engaged in
the work of maintenance and repairs of
constructions in that Department, and not to the
daily wagers engaged in other types of work in
that Department.”
Admittedly the petitioners are not working as daily
wagers of Forest & Environment Department engaged in the
work of maintenance and repairs of constructions. Since
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is not
applicable to the case of the petitioners. none of the
grievances raised in these petitions can be considered.
These petitions are, therefore, devoid of any merit and
require to be rejected.
5. In the premises aforesaid, the petitions are
rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
Since the main matter is disposed of CA No.9008/99 does
not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
In
view of aforesaid, when the issue involved in the present petition
has already been decided by this Court by way of above cited
decision, in light of the same the present petition is required to
be disposed of and the same stands disposed of accordingly. The
parties to abide by the above cited decision. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands hereby
vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top