Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2139/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2139 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 531 of 2009
=========================================================
AMINBHAI
HASAMBHAI BELIM - Appellant(s)
Versus
JETPUR
NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANAND B GOGIA for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR RB GOGIA for Appellant(s) : 1,MR BB GOGIA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR RR TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NJ SHAH, ASSTT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard learned counsel Mr. B.B. Gogia for the appellant and Mr.
Bhavesh P. Trivedi for respondent No.1.
2. This
Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging order passed by
learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.531 of 2009, dated 27.1.2009 by which,
learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner-appellant for regularisation as and when
vacancy occurs and, so far as minimum wage is concerned, the
appellant-petitioner may claim before the appropriate forum.
3. The
appellant was initially appointed in Navagadh Gram Panchayat, as a
Library Sanchalak on part-time basis. It is admitted that he is only
7th Std. pass, whereas the qualification for Librarian is
Graduate in Library Science. Subsequently, Navagadh Gram Panchayat
was merged in Jetpur Nagar Palika. The appellant was taken into
service by Jetpur Nagar Palika on the same terms and conditions on
which he was working in Navagadh Gram Panchayat. He was part-time
Library Sanchalak in Navagadh Gram Panchayat and he has been taken as
Part-time Library Sanchalak in Jetpur Nagar Palika.
4. Whether
a part-time Sanchalak could be regularised or not, or could be taken
into consideration, this has to be considered while considering the
claim of the petitioner-appellant by the respondents.
5. Learned
counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a letter of
respondent dated 21.1.2010. This letter is not the subject matter of
challenge in the present appeal, therefore, we are not inclined to
consider this letter.
6. In
view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
Notice is discharged.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top