Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7464/1996 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7464 of 1996
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Sd/-
=========================================================
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
5Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
1 to 5 : NO
=========================================================
RASHMIKABEN
TRIKAMLAL & 53 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 - 54.
MR RASHESH RINDANI
ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
present petition is filed by a group of 54 employees praying for
extending the benefits of higher pay-scale on completion of 9-18-27
years of service from their respective date of appointment. The
prayer in para 14 (B) of the petition is for setting aside the
Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994
(Annexure-D). It is prayed in para 14 (BB) that the order dated 7th
June, 1999 rejecting the claim of petitioners be also quashed.
Prayer in para 14 (BBB) seeks direction to convert the petitioners
from employees on Work-Charge Establishment to Temporary
Establishment on completion of five years of service and grant the
relief of higher pay-scale from the respective due dates.
2. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader could not dispute that the benefit of
converting the work-charge employees to Temporary Establishment was
available to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners have, vide
Annexure-E, placed on record details about the dates of their
respective appointments and dates from which they were taken on the
Temporary Establishment.
3. The
short grievance made in the present petition is that the Government
has issued G.R. dated 7th July, 1993 (Annexure-B) and
accordingly the persons who have completed five years of service in
Work-Charge Establishment are required to be converted into employees
on Temporary Establishment. But, in the present case, as could be
seen from Annexure-E, the persons who were recruited on Work-Charge
Establishment in 1973, 1975 and 1977 respectively, were converted
into Temporary Establishment in 1990, though the benefit ought to
have been granted on completion of five years of service on
Work-Charge Establishment. To quote an example, petitioner No.1 Shri
T.P.Patel was appointed on 15th March, 1973 and he was
taken on Temporary Establishment on 4th August, 1990.
According to the G.R. which has been placed on record, the
petitioners ought to have been taken from Work-Charge Establishment
to Temporary Establishment on completion of five years of service.
This benefit was not granted, as a result of which the benefit of
higher pay-scales on completion of 9-18-27 years of service have also
been inordinately delayed. The petitioners have placed on record the
G.R. dated 17.01.2000 which states that employees who have completed
five years of service on Work-Charge Establishment are required to be
converted into employees on Temporary Establishment.
4. The
petitioners have also relied upon the order dated 22.9.1998 of this
Court (Coram: K.R.Vyas, J.) in another Special Civil Application
No.2549 of 1998. Learned A.G.P. fairly conceded that the issue in the
present petition is covered by that earlier order. Reliance is also
placed on G.R.No.WCE-1272/(2)/G dated 16th August, 1973 of
which relevant para 2 reads as under:
“The
head of the department under PWD are therefore requested to please
ensure that work charge posts in respect of maintenance and repairs
of any works or irrigation management which are proposed for
conversion to Temporary Establishment should have been continuously
in existence for a minimum period of five years and are required
either permanently or on very long term basis; say 10 to 15 years.”
5. The
petitioners have placed on record G.R. dated 5th July,
1991, wherein it is mentioned that “the benefit shall be
available even to the employees of Panchayat and Primary Teachers
with necessary modification”. That resolution is directly
applicable to the petitioners who are working under the Executive
Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department in its workshop at
Ahmedabad.
6. The
prayer in para 14 (B) of the petition is not pressed by learned
advocate for the petitioners as the Government Resolutions directing
conversion of work-charge employees as temporary employees on
completion of five years of service are not disputed by learned
A.G.P.
7. In
view of undisputed facts about due conversion of the petitioners
from Work-Charge Establishment to Temporary Establishment on the date
they completed five years of service, the natural consequences would
be that on completion of nine years of service from the date they are
deemed to have been converted from Work-Charge Establishment to
Temporary Establishment, the benefit of higher pay-scale under the
scheme of 9-18-27 years of service would be available to the
petitioners.
8. Therefore,
the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of conversion of
the petitioners from Work-Charge Establishment to Temporary
Establishment on completion of five years as work-charge employees
from the date of their initial appointment which is indicated in
column-4 of the statement (Annexure-E to the petition) and
accordingly further directed to grant higher pay-scales from the date
the petitioners have completed nine, eighteen and twenty seven years
of service on Temporary Establishment.
9. During
the course of hearing of the petition, it was submitted by learned
advocate for the petitioners that out of 54 petitioners, few of them
have retired and few of them have expired. It is, therefore, directed
that those petitioners who have retired and/or expired will also be
entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale and they or their legal
heirs, as the case may be, shall be paid the amounts falling due by
virtue of this order, within two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
Rule
is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent, with no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top