Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat & vs Revabhai Bhudarbhai Solanki & 26 on 4 April, 2014
Author: K.J.Thaker
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, K.J.Thaker
C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 472 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2743 of 2002
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3729 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 472 of 2014
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
REVABHAI BHUDARBHAI SOLANKI & 26....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NJ SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 13
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 , 6 - 11 , 16
- 21 , 23 , 25
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 , 6 - 11 , 16 -
21 , 23 , 25
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 04/04/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER)
1. Since, the controversy involved in this appeal is covered by an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which is in turn confirmed by the Apex Court, though, the matter is listed for Admission Hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, same is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order, today.
Page 1 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER2. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, rendered in Special Civil Application Nos.2743 of 2002 and the allied matter, Dated :
22.01.2013, whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ-petitions with a direction that the present respondents-the original petitioners be given the similar treatment, which was given to the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 1681 & 1682 of 2002.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are working as Bearers, Servants, Cooks in Circuit House, Guest House etc. of the State. The Respondents joined the services with the appellants between the years 1978 to 1987. According to the respondents, the appellants framed a policy of conversion from 'Daily Rate' employee to 'Work Charge' cadre vide GR dated 04.07.1973, subject to completion of 5 years' service. Aforesaid GR came to be withdrawn by the appellants in the year 1990. However, the respondents made representations to grant them the benefits of GR of 1973, which came to be accepted and the same were granted to them in the year 2000. It appears that the appellants, then, sought to change the status of the respondents to 'Daily Rate' employees. The Respondents, hence, Page 2 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER approached this Court by filing SCA No. 25 of 2001, wherein, the learned Single judge ordered to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the aforesaid petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the Respondents afresh, after giving them an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 29.01.2002 came to be passed, which came to be challenged by the respondents by filing the aforesaid writ-petitions, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction, as stated in Paragraph-2 herein above. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondents-original petitioners, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1730 of 2011 and the allied matter, Dated : 14.10.2013, which came to be confirmed by the Apex Court vide order, Dated : 20.01.2014, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 39438 & 39439 of 2013, and hence, the present LPA as well as the civil application be dismissed.
5. Mr. Shah, learned AGP, is unable to controvert the aforesaid position.
Page 3 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER6. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record with their assistance. It is an admitted position that the respondents, herein, and the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 1681 & 1682 of 2002 are similarly situated persons. While disposing of SCA Nos. 1681 & 1682 of 2002, the learned Single Judge observed as under at Paragraphs-19 and 21;
"19. In view of above observations made by apex court in aforesaid decisions, facts of present case is almost covered by fact that GR dated 5.1.1990 is not applicable with retrospective effect as members of petitioner union in both petitions were appointed at prior point of time working as daily wager and they were satisfying all requirement of GR dated 4th July, 1973 much prior to issuance of GR dated 5.1.1990, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of Work Charged employees as per GR dated 4th July, 1973 which has rightly been granted by respondents in their favour. For that, no mistake has been committed by respondent State Authority, therefore, decision to withdraw or cancel such benefit as Work Charged employees is hereby quashed and set aside by this Court and it is held that benefit of Work Charged employee has been rightly granted in favour of members of petitioner union in both petitions by respondent authority as per GR dated 4th July, 1973 and for that, no error has been committed by State Page 4 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER Authority which would give right to State Government to withdraw such benefit from members of petitioner union in both petitions.
XXX XXX XXX
21. In view of above decision,
contention raised by respondent State Government that benefit of Work Charged employee was erroneously extended in favour of members of petitioner union in both petitions cannot be accepted. For that, no any material has been placed on record by respondent State Government and such stand of mistake, taken by respondents can hardly justify decision of withdrawal of such benefit being existing right already accrued in favour of work charged employee and, therefore, aforesaid decision squarely covers issue which has been raised in present petition. In facts of present case, stand taken by respondent State Government that benefit of work charged employee has been erroneously extended by State in favour of members of petitioner union as per GR dated 4.7.1973, for such contention, except bare words, no material has been placed on record by respondents to show how decision conferring benefit of work charge employee upon members of petitioner union is erroneous or taken by mistake and, therefore, that contention raised by learned AGP Mr. AL Sharma is rejected."
7. It is pertinent to note that the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State, by filing LPA Nos. 1730 & 1743 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench Page 5 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2013. While dismissing the aforesaid appeals, the Division Bench observed as under at Paragraph-12;
"12. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the State that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 could not have been given to the employees because the said Resolution was revoked by the State Government vide another Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. In our opinion, before the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990 came into force, the employees had already qualified themselves for the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, but for the mistake committed by the authorities, they should have been extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 along with the others. Having realized the mistake, the State authorities rightly decided to extend the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, but thereafter, could not have withdrawn such benefits on the premise of the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. To that extent, we are at one with the learned Single Judge and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is quite a reasonable view, which deserves to be upheld."
8. It appears that the State, then, carried the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 39438-39439 of 2013. The Apex Court also Page 6 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER dismissed the appeals and upheld the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court that since the Respondents entered into service between the years 1978 to 1987, they are entitled to get the benefit of GR dated 04.09.1973 and the State was not justified in withdrawing the benefits of GR of 1973 granted to the present respondents on the basis of GR of 1990. This appeal, hence, deserves dismissal.
9. In the result, the appeal fails and is summarily DISMISSED. Since, we have dismissed the appeal, we direct that the respondents be given the similar treatment that was given to the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 1681 & 1682 of 2002, FORTHWITH. We, further, direct that the respondents be also paid requisite principal amount along with interest, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today, if same is not paid so far.
10. Since appeal is dismissed, civil application shall not survive and it also stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) Page 7 of 8 C/LPA/472/2014 ORDER UMESH Page 8 of 8