Gujarat High Court High Court

Daxin vs State on 1 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Daxin vs State on 1 July, 2011
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3957/2011	 7/ 7	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3957 of 2011
 

 


 

 
=========================================================

 

DAXIN
GUAJRAT LABOUR UNION & 13 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance: 
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA FOR MS VIDHI J BHATT
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 14. 
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Respondents 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/04/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred with the following prayers:

“(A) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
herein to formulate and prepare a permanent scheme for the purpose of
according permanent or quasi permanent status to the daily wagers of
the Forest Department in light of their long service rendered on
daily wages in the Forest Department;

(B) Your
Lordships be pleased to permanently restrain the respondents herein
from terminating or discontinuing in any other manner the service of
the petitioners No.2 to 14;

(C) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
herein to grant the following benefits to the petitioners No.2 to 14
herein:

(a) Permanent
absorption in service or a fair scheme for regularization of service.

(b) Regular
pay scale.

(c) Increments.

(d) Weekly
off.

(e) Group
Insurance.

(f) Casual
leave, earned leave and medical leave.

(g) Public
holidays.

(h) Provident
Fund.

(i) Pension.

(j) Gratuity.

(k) Bonus.

(l) Fixed
norms of misconduct.

(D) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
herein to apply Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioners No.2 to 14 herein and to grant all benefits admissible
under the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioners No.2 to 14 herein depending on the length of each
employee;

(E) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents
herein to grant workcharged benefits payable under the final judgment
dated 30.1.1996 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Special Civil
Applications No.3607/82, 422/83 and 423/83 to the petitioners No.2 to
14 herein just as such benefits have been paid to 746 daily wagers of
the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and
288 daily wagers of the Roads and Buildings Department;

(F) Pending
admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships
be pleased to restrain the respondents herein from terminating the
service of the petitioners No.2 to 14 herein;

(G) Pending
admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships
be pleased to direct the present respondents to grant to the
petitioners benefits similar in nature to those made available to the
daily wagers of the Roads & Buildings Department and the Narmada
Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department vide Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 depending to their length of service;

(H) Your
Lordships be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed
fit in the interest of justice.”

It
is the case of the petitioners that certain Departments of the State
Government such as Roads and Building Department, Narmada, Water
Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and Fisheries
Department have formulated Schemes for grant of permanent status to
daily wagers working in the said Departments, after they complete a
stipulated period of service. According to the petitioners, the
Forest Department under which the petitioners, who are members of the
petitioner No.1 – Union, are working, ought to frame a Scheme
for daily wagers on similar lines, as the work that they perform is
perennial in nature, and is a full-time employment. Most of the
members of the petitioner No.1 – Union have to perform 24 hours’ duty
round the clock and most have, by now, put in service of 5 to 30
years as daily wagers in the Forest Department. It is further the
case of the petitioners that looking to the age factor of its
members, they are now not eligible for employment elsewhere. Most of
them are Tribals / Adivasis and may not qualify to perform any other
work. Several petitions came to be filed by similarly situated
persons, being Special Civil Application No.8647 of 2008 and cognate
matters, wherein this Court, by order dated 29.10.2010 issued certain
directions. The said directions are reproduced below:-

“7. In the
interest of justice, the following directions are issued which will
meet with the ends of justice:

The
impugned order dated 03.05.2008 passed by the Secretary, Forest &
Environment Department, State of Gujarat is quashed and set aside.

The
Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, State of Gujarat, is
directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization
/conferring permanent status, afresh in light of the facts of each
individual case keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove
and also to consider the scope of framing a scheme for giving quasi
permanent status to the petitioners-daily wagers at par with
the scheme for daily wagers in other Government Departments like
Roads & Buildings Department, Narmada Water Resources, Water
Supply and Kalpasar Department, etc., contained in Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In case, the authority is of the view
that the benefits as prayed for cannot be granted then a reasoned
order be passed supported by detailed reasons.

The
aforesaid exercise be undertaken within a period of two months from
today.

Liberty
to revive the petitions in case of difficulty by filing required
application/s.”

According
to the petitioners, for the purposes of this petition, the directions
at Paragraph-7B and C are relevant. As is seen from the order
reproduced hereinabove, one of the directions was to the Secretary,
Forest and Environment Department, Government of Gujarat, to consider
the cases of the petitioners therein for regularization / conferring
permanent status, keeping in view the facts of each individual case
and to consider framing a scheme for giving quasi-permanent status to
the daily wagers at par with the Scheme for daily wagers in other
Government Departments. It is the case of the petitioners that the
above directions would also be applicable to them, hence, the State
Government ought to consider their cases along similar lines.

Today,
when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati,
learned Assistant Government Pleader, states upon the basis of the
communication dated 07.04.2011 of the Principal Conservator of
Forests, which is taken on the record of the case, and upon oral
instructions received from Shri S.K.Nanda, Principal Secretary,
Forests and Environment Department that:

“The
individual cases of the petitioners for regularization / conferring
permanent status shall be considered in light of the observations
made by this Court in Paragraph-7B of order dated 29.10.2010 passed
in Special Civil Application No.8647 of 2008 and cognate matters,
within a period of six months from today.”

In
view of the above statement made by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader, Mr.Shalin N.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners,
states that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition, with
liberty to approach this Court in case of difficulty.

Permission
to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Court in case
of difficulty is granted.

The
petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged.

(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)

(sunil)

   

Top