SCA/6667/2008 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6667 of 2008 ========================================= CHAUHAN JAYESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR HK ACHARYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR KS ACHARYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. In
this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the
respondent ý Corporation of not showing the correct designation and
department of the petitioner and the action has caused him monetary
loss. The petitioner has raised his claim on the basis of the Award
passed by the learned Arbitrator appointed under provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the directions for
regularization of Class IV employees on completion of 900 days came
to be passed. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
has completed 900 days of working and thus, as per the said Award,
he was entitled for being regularized as Pump Labour (Pump Mazoor).
However, by order dated 31.1.2004, though he was regularized but
wrongly as daily wage labour and that therefore, he was constrained
to prefer present petition for redressal of grievance that he should
be regularized as Pump Labour with effect from 31.12.2004.
2. Today,
Mr. Chhaya, learned advocate has placed on record a Resolution dated
30.6.2008, whereby the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administrator)
has issued directions clarifying the position by virtue of which
necessary correction in the designation of the petitioner, is
directed to be made. Accordingly, the error in showing the
designation of the petitioner would be corrected and the petitioner
would be designated as Pump Mazoor. Obviously such correction would
come into the operation from the date when the service of the
petitioner was originally regularized as daily wages labour i.e.
31.12.2004.
3. In
view of the said communication dated 30.6.2008, the grievance of the
petitioner is satisfied. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate submitted that
in view of the said clarification, the petitioner would be entitled
for difference of salary also with effect from 31.12.2004 and
Corporation may be directed to make the said payment.
4. If
the petitioner is entitled for any difference of salary, upon such
correction/clarification with regard to his designation, then the
difference of wages may be paid to the petitioner within three months
from the date of receipt of this order.
5. With
the aforesaid clarification and direction, the petition is disposed
of as the grievance of the petitioner is satisfied.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas