Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8924/2001 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8924 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
SHANKARBHAI
JEENABHAI PATNI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 22/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. In
this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:
“9. The
petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased:
(A) To
issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside
the oral termination of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was
asked not to come to duties with effect from 1.10.2001 and further be
pleased to direct the respondents to pay all allowances and benefits
to the petitioner which are payable to Class-IV employees of the
State Government.
(B) To
issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents
to regularise the services of the petitioner as Class-IV employee of
the State Government with effect from his date of appointment.
(C) During
the pendency, admission and final disposal of this petition Your
Lordship be pleased to direct the respondent-authorities to give work
to the petitioner and to pay the allowances and salary to the
petitioner regularly as water-bearer/peon.
(D) Your
Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further relief/s as are
deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Facts
in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1994 on the
post of water server in the office of respondent no.3 and was being
paid fix salary of Rs.900/- per month. It is not disputed that at the
time when the petitioner was appointed as a water server in the year
1994, no letter of appointment or any order was issued. It appears
that only on some oral communication, the petitioner started serving
as a water server. In the year 2001, all of a sudden, the petitioner
was asked not to attend the office and the services were terminated.
Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner preferred the present
petition praying for reinstatement with all benefits.
3. Affidavit-in-reply
has been filed by respondent nos.2 and 3. In the reply, it has been
stated as under:
“5. I
say and submit that Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries was having
its office at Ahmedabad and office of the Joint Director, E.D.P. Cell
was at Gandhinagar. I say that as the new building was ready and
these two offices were shifted to new premise at Gandhinagar. I say
that office of the Joint Director, EDP Cell which was independent was
emerged as a branch of the previous one. I say that therefore the
requirement of part time water bearer taken did not survive and as an
economic drive the services of the petitioner’s were not required and
therefore the same were terminated. I say that even otherwise
petitioner has no right to claim for as a part time water bearer or
for appointment to the post of Class-IV employee.
6. I
say that no other person has been appointed after the service of the
petitioner has been terminated. As stated earlier the services were
not required and due to economic drive services of the petitioner was
terminated.
7. I
say and submit that the petitioner has no right to continue in
service in as much as the Govt. Resolution dated 26.12.1980 which is
sought to be relied upon by the petitioner has been stayed/kept in
abeyance by virtue of the G.R. dated 21.8.85. Hence also petitioner
has no right based upon the G.R. dated 26.12.1980, which is not in
force, can be granted to the petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked
Annexure-I is a copy of the G.R. dated 21.8.85.”
4. Taking
into consideration the stand of the respondents, prima facie, it
appears that the petitioner without any order of appointment was
orally taken up in service. There is nothing to suggest that any
procedure was undertaken for the purpose of appointment and appears
to be a case of back door entry. Even otherwise, the appointment was
temporary and no right can be said to have been accrued to favour of
the petitioner to continue. It is also evident that since 2001, the
petitioner is no more in service. Taking into consideration the
relevant aspects of the matter, I do not find any merit in this
petition. The same is hereby rejected with no order as to costs. Rule
is discharged.
(
J.B.Pardiwala, J )
srilatha
Top