Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4724/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4724 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
AKHIL
GUJARAT GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NADIAD
NAGAR PALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UT MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 30/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Learned Advocate Mr.Deepak
P.Sanchela for the respondent – Chief Officer, Nadiad
Nagarpalika, files affidavit of Shri Prashant K.Parikh, Chief
Officer, Nadiad Municipality. Para-3 of the affidavit reads as
under:-
“3. At the outset I
respectfully say that, looking to the relevant record of the
Municipality petitioner was serving with the municipality from 1978
and onward and he was called for the post of different interview in
the year 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 but concerned selection committee
was not selected the petitioner even though petitioner was most
senior person in respect of the selected person even he was securing
due qualification as regard the concerned post, I say that it is very
difficulty to say that on what ground petitioner was not selected but
at present also he is continue with the Municipality as a daily
wager, therefore looking to the length of service and qualification
petitioner, municipality is ready to make proposal to the director of
Municipality for regularizing of the petitioner, further Municipality
is ready to give the continuity in service from deemed date if the
petitioner will wave arrears/back wages subject to director is
sanction the post.”
2. The
aforesaid averments made in para-3 does take care of the grievance of
the petitioner. However, there is no mention as to within what time,
the petitioner will be given regular appointment, as the same is made
subject to sanction from the Director
of Municipalities.
3. Taking
into consideration the facts of the case and
the affidavit filed by the Chief Officer, it is deemed proper to
direct the Municipality to take up the matter with the Director of
Municipalities in an urgent manner and shall see to it that necessary
proposals are rooted and the orders are obtained as early as
possible, preferably by 30.09.2011.
4. In
view of the above, the impugned award and order dated 10.12.2010
passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, in
Reference (ITN) No.37 of 2004 is accordingly modified. The petition
is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
Liberty
is reserved in favour of the petitioner in case of difficulty.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top