Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3784/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3784 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHESHKUMAR
JITSINH RAJ & 19 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 20.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1
- 3.
MR DG CHAUHAN for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the action of the respondents authorities in not converting
the petitioners to Temporary Establishment with effect from the
date on which they have completed their five years service in
Work-charge Establishment.
The brief facts of the case
are as under :-
2.1
As per the say of the petitioners the petitioners were appointed
as Rojamdar in different years. In 1988-89, the petitioners were
given appointment on Work-charge Establishment. As per the
Government Resolution dated 16.8.1993, all the petitioners had
become entitled to be appointed on Temporary Establishment in
1993-94.
2.2
However, the respondents authorities have not given appointment to
the petitioners on the said post. Even the petitioners have also
completed their nine years of services from the date on which they
had become entitled to be appointed on temporary Establishment and
therefore they are also entitled to get benefit of Higher Pay Scale.
2.3
One of their colleagues was given appointed in Work-charge
Establishment has been appointed on Temporary Establishment and also
given the Higher Pay Scale. However, the petitioners have not been
converted into Temporary Establishment and not given higher pay
scale thought they have completed their nine years services. The
petitioners have made representation to the authorities, which is
pending. Hence this petition.
Heard learned advocates for
the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
From the record it revealed
that the petitioners were working since long and they had not been
given the benefits as per the Rules. Since the representation is
pending before the authority, the authority is directed to decide
the said representation within four months from the date of the
receipt of this order in accordance with law. With above observation
petition stands disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that his
Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. Notice is
discharged with no order as to costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top