Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9403/1993 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9403 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7684 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7699 of 1993
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 ?
=========================================================
J
K MEHTA & 2 – Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
WATER & RESOURSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & 3 –
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HJ DHOLAKIA for Petitioner(s) : 1 2.
MR YN OZA for Petitioner(s) : 3,
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 2 –
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 08/04/2010
ORAL
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. As
common questions on law and facts are involved in these petitions,
they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By
way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs :-
[a]
Be pleased to admit this petition.
[b]
Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order
passed by the respondents, against the petitioners.
[c]
Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondents to absorb and regularize the services of the
petitioners.
[d]
Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order / action of the
respondents of reducing the pay of the petitioners, in the basic pay
of Rs.1220/- to Rs.996/- and be further pleased to direct the
respondents their officers, agents to grant to the petitioners pay in
the pay of Rs.1220/- and make actual payment of this amount of
difference in salary, with all consequential and incidental of
services and other benefits,
(e)
……..
3. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioners are working with the
respondents since long and they are still in services. The
respondents on 21.07.1993 issued notice to the petitioners to
retrench their services. It is the case of the petitioners that the
action of the respondents is illegal inasmuch as the
respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioners,
though they have served the respondents for so many years. Being
aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents, the
petitioners have approached this Court by way of these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the document
on record. It appears from the record that the petitioners
appointment with the respondents at the initial stage was purely on
contractual basis as per the requirement of the work. Apart from that
there was also break in services of the petitioners from time to time
since the work of the petitioners was purely on contract basis.
Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners services cannot be regularized as the same was on
contractual basis. Hence, no illegality or infirmity has been
committed by the respondents while issuing the impugned notices, and
I do not find any reasons to interfere with the same under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In
the result, the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top