Gujarat High Court
Vijay Bharatbhai Sachdev vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10346 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15071 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15190 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15290 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16660 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16815 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10670 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7217 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4956 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6017 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8466 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9614 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3509 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8740 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11828 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16446 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17552 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19988 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20545 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1574 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7178 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8456 of 2017
With
Page 1 of 83
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10007 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16179 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17709 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15507 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1597 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12773 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4949 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11235 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22086 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3770 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIJAY BHARATBHAI SACHDEV & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Petitioner(s) No.
106,110,114,119,145,146,148,150,153,166,198,210,212,242,243,34,50,52,53
,58,60,61,62,70
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR HJ DHOLAKIA(5862) for the
Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,11,110,111,112,113,114,115
,116,117,118,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,13,130,131,132,
133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,
15,150,151,152,154,155,156,157,158,159,16,160,161,162,163,164,165,167,1
68,169,17,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,18,180,181,182,183,18
4,185,186,187,188,189,19,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,2,20,2
00,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,21,211,213,214,215,216,217,218,2
19,22,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,23,230,231,232,233,234,23
Page 2 of 83
Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
5,236,237,238,239,24,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,25,250,251
,252,253,254,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,
45,46,47,48,49,5,51,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,
73,74,75,76,77,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,9
6,97,98,99
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR
JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in all the captioned petitions is identical, are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. The Special Civil Application No.10346 of 2014 is treated as the lead matter and the decision in the said petition shall govern captioned petitions.
The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions have adopted submissions advanced by Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel and in view thereof separate contentions are not recorded.
2. By way of present petitions the petitioners herein challenge the action of the respondent authorities who rather then treating the service of the petitioners as regular work Page 3 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined from the date of their appointment are in process of terminating the petitioners upon completion of 03 years contract period, though all the petitioners are appointed after following the regular process of selection by competitive method and the petitioners have also gone through the various training from time to time on their respective posts. Upon successful completion of probation period, the petitioners cleared the performance appraisal, however the petitioners are not only denied regular pay-scale but also not accorded fixed scale as per the Government Resolution.
2.1 The petitioners herein are appointed with the respondent No.2 for a period of three years pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper in accordance with the G. R. dated 16.11.2010. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the communication dated 11.6.2014. The respondent No.2 informed all the District Development Officers by letter dated 11.6.2014 that the services of the 300 employees will be availed only upto 31.7.2014 which amounts to complete exploitation of the Page 4 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined petitioners' herein which has resulted in filing of the present petition and the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs :-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus by holding that the selection of the petitioners to their respective posts was a regular selection, after following the regular process of selection and that they are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their appointment and their services stood confirm on their satisfactorily clearing probation period and that their services cannot be terminated in any manner contrary to one by which services of a permanent employee can be terminated.
(C) Your Lordships may be issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination dated 11/06/2014 to terminate the services of the petitioners from 31/07/2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and further be pleased to regularize the service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and further be pleased to give all consequential benefits, monitory and non-monitory inclusive of the full back wages.Page 5 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined (D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the termination order dated 11/06/2014 passed by the respondent No.1 which is to come into the effect from 31/07/2014, as if the same is not passed, and to restrain them to terminate the service or to discontinue them from 31/07/2014 and further be pleased to grant the regular pay scale or at least may be given as per to the Government Resolution dated 16/11/2010. (E) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient may be granted."
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :-
3.1 The respondent No.1 passed the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure-A) by which the Scheme "Mission Mangalam" enforced by the respondent No.1 and also approved the organizational structure of the respondent No.2 by creating the following posts :-
(i) General Manager (State) Page 6 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined (ii) Project Manager (State) (iii) District Livelihood Manager (iv) Asstt. Project Manager (District) (v) Taluka Livelihood Manager (vi) Asstt. Project Manager (Taluka)
The respondent No.2 is a legal person and a separate legal entity. The setup of the staff and employees instead of being governed by its own Resolutions or Articles or Memorandum of Association, the respondents have chosen to do the same by way of government resolution.
3.2 The respondent No.2 modified the recruitment procedure by way of different methods in the said G.R. data 16.11.2010.
In the instant recruitment, process method-two as envisaged is applied, which is more competitive and transparent. As per the method, public advertisement was issued in January 2011. As per method open advertisement followed by proficiency test, as prescribed in the G.R. dated 16.11.2010 and so also as procedure which was followed.
Page 7 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 3.3 The petitioners applied for various posts according to their qualifications. The minimum qualification even for the lowest post is a master degree and bachelor degree. Upon applying the petitioners had to clear entire recruitment process which includes written examination, group discussion and personal interview. Upon passing all the three examinations, as per the procedure prescribed in the G.R. dated 16.11.2010 those candidates who cleared the same will be given/appointment letters strictly in accordance with merit prepared by the respondent No.2 by way of contract for the respective posts.
3.4 The petitioners were neither paid salary as per the regular pay-scale of pay or even as per the G. R. dated 16.11.2010. Reliance is placed on the appointment letters of contracts for various posts which are duly produced at an Annexure-C (page-44).
3.5 It is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners are Page 8 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined working in various districts in the State and performing their duties with utmost sincerity, honesty and upto the satisfaction of their seniors. The respondent No.2 has apprised the petitioners on the basis of their performance. Though the petitioners have been apprised twice, salaries of the petitioners were never paid as per the regular pay-scale or as per the G.R. dated 16.11.2010.
3.6 It is further the case of the petitioners that in the year 2012-13, some districts were covered under Central Government scheme, namely, National Rural Livelihood Project
- NRLP and National Rural Livelihood Mission NRLM. Salary of those petitioners, whose districts have been covered under the Central Government schemes will be paid from the fund of the NRLM, but will remain as employees of the respondent No.2 only. As the petitioners were to complete three years term which is camouflaged as a contract, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the District Development Officers of all the districts on 31.3.2014 that the service of the petitioners Page 9 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined shall continue and no order of termination shall be passed till further orders in light of the code of conduct due to the Lok- Sabha Elections.
3.7 Some of the petitioners filed applications under the Right to Information Act 2005 dated 13.1.2014 and 21.3.2014 seeking some detailed information regarding the respondent No.2 company and its actions to which the respondent No.2 sent a reply on 23.4.2014, wherein some shocking facts came to the knowledge of the present petitioners. 3.8 Even after completion of three years, the respondent No.2 has not made its human resources manual, which is in fact prior requirement as per the G.R. 16.11.2010. It has also come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has stated that all the employees are being given salaries as per the G.R. dated 16.11.2010 which is also incorrect looking into the contracts of the petitioners which is duly produced at Annexure-E. After the election was over, the respondent No.2 informed the Senior General Manager and Page 10 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Director, District Rural Development Agency that since contract of the employees has been renewed for one year from 1.4.2014, all the employees are eligible for casual leave for the current year as also the remaining casual leaves of the previous years which is produced at Annexure-F. To the utter shock and surprise of the present petitioners in not more than 11 days, the responded No.2 requested to grant casual leaves by the letter dated 30.5.2014, again wrote a letter on 11.6.2014 to the District Development Officer of all districts that all those employees whose contract expired on 31.3.2014, their services will be availed only till 31.7.2014. The said letter is duly produced at Annexure-G. 3.9 The petitioners filed representations to various authorities requesting not to terminate their service as respondents have invested crores of rupees behind them for the purpose of their training and when they are trained, services of the petitioners are likely to be terminated and any fresh recruitment for the said posts will increase burden on the State Page 11 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined exchequer. The said representations have not been decided by the authorities and therefore the action of terminating the service of petitioners is also against the settled principles of natural justice. The representations are produced at Annexure- H to the petition.
3.10 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of termination dated 11.6.2014, Annexure-G to the petition, the petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the reliefs as referred above.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners :-
4. Heard Mr. Y. N. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. J. Dholakia, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.
4.1 Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners herein are appointed upon issuance of public advertisement in the newspaper as per method two, "open Page 12 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined advertisement followed by proficiency test" as prescribed in the G. R. dated 16.11.2010. The petitioners herein applied for the said post and cleared written examination, group discussion and personal interview. The selection process and the procedure undertaken by the respondent No.2 is similar to that of the process of selection of regular employees and not only that the posts for which the petitioners applied also can be considered as regular posts and may be declared as regularized posts in light of the betterment of the society. 4.2 It is submitted that after passing three examinations, those candidates who cleared the said examinations are offered appointment letters by way of contract for their respective posts. The salary which is stated in the contract is not as per the government resolution and, therefore, the respondent No.2 is required to give salary either as per the regular pay-scale of the employees working under the respondent No.2 or at least as per the G. R. dated 16.11.2010. The petitioners, selected candidates, have also undergone various training from time to Page 13 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined time as per the requirement of the respective posts. 4.3 It is submitted that the petitioners were sent to other States such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala etc., for different training programs for which the respondents have spent crores of rupees. The respondents are spending minimum one lakh rupees per employee per training program. Qua some of the petitioners, airfares are also borne by the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents were in the process of terminating the service of the petitioners and some of the employees were also in the midst of the training from various institutions, like Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration (SPIPA) and also from out States.
4.4 It is submitted that the petitioners are performing their duties for upliftment and betterment of the needy, illiterate and poor women of the society, coming from remote areas of the State. The petitioners are working as a bridge between the Government organizations / activities and needy women. The petitioners are helping them to reach out to their needs and Page 14 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined therefore trained employees are required to be continued on their services and their posts are required to be regularized and hence the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and all the petitioners are required to be regularized.
4.5 It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has apprised the petitioners on the basis of their performance. Though the petitioners are apprised twice, the petitioners' salaries are never paid as per the regular pay-scale or increased even as per the government resolution by the respondent authority so also against the interest of the petitioners herein who are working day-in and day-out for the betterment of the society on behalf of the respondent authority. It is submitted that no steps have been taken to increase the salary of the petitioners, but those candidates who could not clear the appraisal procedure, their services came to be terminated by the respondent authority.
4.6 It was submitted that it has come to the knowledge of Page 15 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has stated that all the employees are being paid salaries as per the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 which is also incorrect. It is submitted that even after completion of three years the respondent No.2 has not made its human resources manual which is in fact a prior requirement as per the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010.
4.7 It is further submitted that on one hand the respondent No.2 informed all the District Development Officers by communication dated 30.5.2014 to grant the benefit of casual leaves for a current year and remaining earned leaves for the previous years as the contract has been extended for another tenure of one year and on the other hand, within next 11 days the respondent No.2 overruled its own letter by letter dated 11.6.2014 that the service of 300 employees will be availed only upto 30.7.2014 which amounts to complete exploitation of the petitioners herein and in view thereof, the said action is illegal and arbitrary.
Page 16 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 4.8 It is submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010, minimum experience require for the lowest post is two to five years, therefore for all the petitioners who applied for said post must have left their previous job and have joined the respondent No.2 and therefore these are not the posts which can be said to be a time being posts, but it requires qualified and trained candidates like the present petitioners.
4.9 It is submitted that without terminating the services of the petitioners the posts are required to be regularized. It is submitted that during the selection process there are no allegations of malpractice or deficiency in the recruitment process and therefore there is no requirement to discontinue the service of the petitioner and to initiate fresh recruitment procedure. It is submitted that not a single petitioner is facing departmental inquiry or even a criminal case of moral turpitude or even otherwise which may lead to respondent authorities to discontinue the services of the petitioners herein. Page 17 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 4.10 It is submitted that it is in the benefit of the respondent State to continue and regularize the services of the petitioners having spent crores of rupees in training the present petitioners at the cost of the State exchequer. It is also submitted that the process of declaring fresh recruitment on the posts will also cause further expense of crores of rupees and that it would further burden the State exchequer, therefore also the services rendered by the petitioners are to be continued and regularized.
4.11 It is submitted that the petitioners' from top level to bottom level posts as on today have become over-aged and may not be able to find another job which may amount to ruin their family life also and on humanitarian grounds also the services of the petitioners herein are such that the same be regularized.
4.12 Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 has been brought into Page 18 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined existence for implementation of a scheme named 'Mission Mangalam' and another scheme named 'National Rural Lively Mission' (for short NRLM). It is submitted that the scheme 'Mission Mangalam' is a permanent scheme which is a benevolent Scheme with the noble objective to touch large number of downtrodden and underprivileged people. 4.13 It is submitted that instead of one department of the government looking after it so as to disturb its regular work, a company has been created which will as limb of government undertake implementation of 'Mission Mangalam'. Such concept is not new and relied on the creation of Statute such as Gujarat Civil Supplies Corporation, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation as also GSFC and GIDC Act.
4.14 It is submitted that the task to carry out the Scheme of 'Mission Mangalam' wherein the respondent No.2 has established a company is similar to that of the aforesaid Page 19 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Statutes which are also the creature of the respondent No.2. It is submitted that rather than forming a separate corporation which is governed by its Statute, after passing the legislative assembly, to discharge its duties now the State has started adopting a new practice of creating company just like the respondent No.2 company who is appointing employees like the present petitioners on contract basis only with a view to deny the regular scale of pay which otherwise the State Government is paying as a regular scale to other concerned department.
4.15 It is submitted that 'Mission Mangalam' is a dream project of the State Government and the Union Government came out with the scheme known as NRLM. Even the Union Government has delegated its powers to respective State Governments to achieve the object and in pursuance thereof the State of Gujarat has come up with a scheme called 'Mission Mangalam'. The fact again can be seen from the preamble (at page-33) of the petition that the company has Page 20 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined been created even to carry out NRLM. It is submitted that the plain reading of the vision and mission of GLPC and introduction would show that it is a permanent creation like Gujarat State Water supply Corporation Limited or Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. Instead of creating a Corporation, in the instant case, the respondent No.1 has created a company that is the respondent No.2 herein, thus it is not for a temporary period or for a particular goal of a temporary nature which is sought to be achieved by the State Government that the respondent No.2 has been created.
4.16 It is submitted that the State has adhered to unfair labour practice and most unfair practice, if not labour practice in treating the subject. It is only and only with a view to deny the regular scale of pay. At page-36 there is a provision that it will be a fixed tenure appointment for three years. It is submitted that the organization which is permanent and perennial would have single post as sanction. It is submitted Page 21 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined that at page-36 in Clause (5) it clearly states that all the posts shall be governed by the Recruitment Rules which would be specified under the human resource manual, however all the recruitment have taken place under Chapter-3 at Schedule-1 which can be seen at page-39. Though the human resources manual is not made out, the sanction has been given to the Recruitment Rules.
4.17 It is submitted that at page-33 five government resolutions have been referred to. At Sr. No.1 there is a reference to Government Resolution dated 31.3.2010 which clearly and without any doubt would go to suggest that the respondent No.2 is brought into existence for carrying out the projects of 'Mission Mangalam' which otherwise would be carried out by the State Government, a copy of which is relied upon at Annexure-M. It is submitted that rest of the government resolutions referred to at Sr. Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are in furtherance of the resolution No.1 and though the petitioners do not have a copy of the same, but reliably learnt Page 22 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined that the government resolutions No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are issued to make functioning of the scheme and functioning of the respondent No.2 on a stronger footing.
4.18 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.2 :-
5. Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2. Mr. Munshaw, the learned advocate relied on the affidavit-in-reply which is duly produced at page-138 and raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the petition and submitted that no fundamental rights of the petitioners have either been infringed or abridged by any of the action on part of the respondent No.2, as the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis only for implementing the project which is of a limited duration. It is also submitted that having accepted the fixed Page 23 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined term appointments with open hands, it now cannot turn around and challenge the same, inter alia praying for absorption as government servant.
5.1 It is submitted that the project itself is of a limited duration and posts not being of a perennial in nature, it is not permissible for the petitioners to claim parity with the government servants. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein were appointed on fixed term employment of three years in the year 2011. The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners' alleging that the services of the petitioners came to be terminated by communication dated 11.6.2014 is baseless in light of the fact that the appointment orders of the petitioners automatically come to an end upon expiry of the contract period of three years. On the basis of the aforesaid contractual appointment it is not open for the petitioners to seek continuance of contractual period by praying for direction to the respondent No.2 not to terminate the services of the petitioners in any manner and to treat them at par with the Page 24 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined regularly selected government employees in the government service.
5.2 It is submitted that the main objective of the 'Mission Mangalam' is eradication of poverty by adopting public private partnership model in coordination with various institutions like banks, financial institutions, livelihood oriented institutions, industrial undertaking, etc. Since the said 'Mission Mangalam' was never envisaged as a project having permanent and perennial type of activity vide another Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010, it has been provided that appointment of various personnel with different designations would be on contractual basis for a fixed term of three years. It is submitted that the said 'Mission Mangalam' is fully aided by the State budget after deducting the amount received from other sources including the Government of India. Reliance is placed on the same government resolutions duly produced at page-149 collectively dated 31.3.2010 and 16.11.2010. Page 25 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 5.3 It is submitted that the Central Government came out with a similar project called NRLM at National level to achieve similar objective like the project of 'Mission Mangalam' by districts and the country by the end of the twelfth five year plans i.e. by 2017 with the arrangement of financing the said project between the Central and State Governments in the ratio of 75 is to 25. The aforesaid is discernible from the overview of the project published by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India which is relied upon and duly produced at Annexure-II at page-159.
5.4 It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has been formed on 31.3.2000 under the provisions of the Companies Act to run, establish and encourage and carry on various activities as the corporation to provide, develop and promote livelihood and eradicate poverty through concerted community action by facilitating organization of the poor for combining self-help with demand-led conversions of available services and resources to tackle multiple dimensions and manifestations of Page 26 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined poverty holistically.
5.5 It is submitted that advertisements were issued inviting applications for various posts, as stated in the said Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010. Pursuant to the said advertisement petitioners herein came to be appointed by issuing appointment letters, carrying a specific condition to the effect that the appointment would be of a fixed term employment contract that is FTE contract inclusive of three months probation period up to 31.3.2014. 5.6 Reliance is placed on the requirement of qualification and experience vis-a-vis fixed monthly salary payable to the incumbent against each of the aforesaid designations as set out in the said table duly produced at paragraph-6. It is submitted that during the course of conduct of the aforesaid two projects i.e. the 'Mission Mangalam' project and NRLM project it was realized that there is an earnest need to improve skills sets of organization of requisite human resources. As the respondent Page 27 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined No.2 has now a further requirement of 350 persons in various designations, as referred above, a decision has been taken to provide for requirement of higher qualification as compared to the original contractual appointment of the petitioners on various posts. Reliance is placed on paragraph-7 of the reply filed by the respondent No.2 to substantiate the aforesaid contention.
5.7 It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, the respondent No.2 has now come out with issue of development for recruiting 350 personnel in various designations. It is submitted that it is quite likely that many of the petitioners may require higher qualification as required during the course of the interregnum, whereby they may be in a position to compete in the matter of contractual appointment of 350 vacancies, however it is legally not feasible to continue the petitioners in the aforesaid projects as much as it would ultimately invite discrimination affecting the whole working atmosphere in both the projects.
Page 28 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 5.8 It is submitted that the services of the petitioners have come to an end by efflux of time and in absence of there being any fresh appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim it as a matter of right to claim continuance over contractual posts in question. The petitioners are continued by virtue of the interim order passed by the court, however the service of the petitioners have come to an end on 31.7.2014. It is denied that the respondent No.2 has taken a separate/ different stand within a short span of 11 days as alleged.
5.9 It is submitted that the tenure of employment of the petitioners had come to an end on 31.3.2004, however in view of the ensuing general elections, while internal communication later on 31.3.2014 it was addressed to various District Development Officers that the contractual appointment of such appointees including the petitioners working in State, District and Taluka levels be continued till further orders. Thereafter Page 29 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined dealing with aspect of relating to casual leave and earned leave in internal communication dated 30.5.2014 addressed to all the concerned authorities at the district level it was conveyed that decision has been taken to extend the tenure on contractual appointees which was expiring on 31.3.2014 by further period of one year w.e.f. 1.4.2014. 5.10 It is submitted that it was a said internal communication under mistaken belief, but the same was never meant for any of the contractual employees including the petitioners. In fact, there was no reason for the respondent No.2 to extend the tenure for a further period of one more year, particularly when the respondent No.2 was to scout for similar persons with higher qualifications and experience, as submitted above. It is submitted that under the circumstances vide further internal communication dated 11.6.2014 addressed to all the concerned District Development Officers, it was conveyed that the tenure of contractual appointees numbering 300 including the petitioners whose three years tenure came to an end on Page 30 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 31.3.2014 should be allowed only upto 31.7.2014. 5.11 It is submitted that accidental extension of four months came to be available to the petitioners cannot be and should not by itself give rise to any favour to the petitioners to invoke Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when the petitioners accepted the terms of appointment with open eyes and it is now not permissible to turn around and brand the letter of extension as termination and challenge the same before the court.
5.12 It is submitted that the communication dated 11.6.2014 is an order of termination is absolutely devoid of substance. It is submitted that in the year 2011 itself when the petitioners were appointed for the first time on contractual basis a further period of three years with fixed monthly installments their services or otherwise would come to an end by efflux of time and therefore there arises no question of alleged illegal termination of services of the petitioners. It is submitted that Page 31 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined this court may not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the policy decision taken for implementing the project of mission 'Mission Mangalam' and NRLM, whereby contractual appointments of the petitioners were effected for a fixed period of three years, and it was unconditionally accepted by the petitioners without any protest.
5.13 It is submitted that none of the projects have been a permanent creation requiring the services of regular employees. It is submitted that the projects are of limited duration and with budgetary finances for which it is not possible to create permanent posts with prescribed pay-scale like employment in the government services. It is submitted that the State has adhered to infallible practice. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is neither permanent nor perpetual and the aforesaid projects are conceived by the State Government and Central Government and are of limited duration and that to as per the discretion of the respective government wherein the Page 32 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined respondent No.2 is playing a limited role facilitating the execution of the said projects.
5.14 Reliance is placed on the ratio down in case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it is held that protection of provisions of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)
(a) and 21 are not available to the petitioners since the appointment of the petitioners were for a limited tenure under a project and the petitioners have never been appointed on regular establishment in the government service in regular pay- scale. It is submitted that without prejudice to the rights and contentions that are taken even if the petitioners have a right to continue over the posts even then the appointments will not only being violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but also against the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Employment Standing Orders applicable to the appointments of the respondent company. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed, the same being devoid of merits. Page 33 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State:-
6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jay Trivedi, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 - State relied on the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 (Page-36 para-5) and submitted that the recruitment process of the petitioners is as specified under the Human Resource Manual approved by the board of GLPC, Chapter-3 Recruitment and Induction Rules which are annexed at Schedule-1 (page-39). Reliance was placed on the appointment order duly produced at page-44 Annexure-C, Page-44 - appointment order for the post of General Manager, at page-51 Project Manager and Page-58 - appointment order for the post of District Livelihood Manager. Placing reliance on the appointment orders duly produced at Annexure-C (Colly.) at pages 44, 51 and 58 submitted that it is a mode of assignment for a fixed term of three years upon various terms and conditions. It was submitted that the petitioners would be on probation for three months upon Page 34 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined satisfactory performance upon review during the said period, if it is found that the performance is unsatisfactory on review during the probation period the services may be terminated without notice or assigning any reasons or compensation. It was submitted that on successful completion of probation period three years fixed term employment FTE contract shall commence. The said contract would be inclusive of three months. The contract shall also be renewable as may be decided by the management on the basis of mutual agreement. 6.1 It is submitted that for the purpose of remuneration the petitioners are governed by standing orders, service rules and regulations of GLPC in force as may be formed/modified from time to time without prejudice to any provision under the contract. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted the respondent - State has established the respondent No.2 GLPC to implement the State's livelihood initiative "Mission Mangalam" and NRLM with an objective to provide sustainable livelihoods to poor-households in accordance with the goals of Page 35 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the "Mission Mangalam" and NRLM. To achieve the said purpose necessary human resources are required to be provided to the GLPC and after careful consideration the respondent State has approved the organizational structure of GLPC respondent No.2 herein. It is resolved to fulfill the said structure under the terms and conditions specified in the said resolution. It is submitted that the emoluments against the said posts annually are such that the same cannot be equated with any sanctioned post and analogous pay-scale to any such sanctioned posts in the State Government and in view thereof the contention of the petitioners to regularize the service of the petitioners in accordance with the pay-scale of a regularly appointed employee is such that the same cannot be considered. Even as per the case of the petitioners as pleaded in the memo of petition, more particularly para-2, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that there is no permanent post in the Company and, therefore, there is no question of regularization.
Page 36 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 6.2 It is submitted that all the posts are on contractual basis for a fixed tenure of three years. It is submitted that the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of the Managing Director of the GLPC is constituted for the purpose of recruitment of the personnel consisting of the committee as stated in Sachedule-1 Chapter-3 of the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010. It is also submitted that the board of GLPC shall approve three to four levels under each category to attract experienced persons in the company. The levels along with compensation levels are reflected as per the human resource manual of the company. It is submitted that support services at State, District and Taluka level and positions of Assistant Project Manager, if require at State level would be approved through out-sourcing as stated in Schedule-1 (page
39).
6.3 It is also submitted that the expenditure on the establishment of the GLPC would be provided as grant-in-aid from the State budget after deducting amounts received, if Page 37 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined any, from other sources including the Government of India. It is also submitted that GLPC shall develop an incentive program for its employees separately which shall be submitted to the State Government for its approval and the GLPC also to submit proposal in respect of service conditions and allowances of employees separately for the approval of the respondent State. It is submitted that it is expected of the GLPC to formulate its organizational goals and verifiable targets which forms the basis of MOU with the State Government. It is submitted that the advertisement is also issued by the GLPC. 6.4 In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the following decisions :-
(a) In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, (paras 35 to 92)
(b) In the case of S. Sodhi vs. National Council of State Agricultural Marketing Board, 1997 (2) SCT 475
(c) In the case of State of Manipur and Anr. vs. Ksh.Page 38 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Moirangninthou Singh and Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 544
(d) In the case of Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr., 2023 SCC Online SC 173.
Rejoinder of behalf of the petitioners :-
7. Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel in rejoinder reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the core issue involved in the present petitions is that the respondent authorities, who rather than treating the service of the petitioners as regular from the date of appointment are in process of terminating the services of the petitioner upon completion of the three years' contract. That the petitioners herein are appointed after following the regular process of selection by competitive method and that the petitioners have undergone various training from time to time for the respective posts.
7.1 It is submitted that the petitioners have successfully completed probation period and have cleared appraisal, Page 39 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined however the petitioners are not only denied regular pay-scale, but are not even accorded fixed scale as per the government resolution. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is in process of recruiting some more employees with higher quantification in place of the present employees and for that an advertisement is given wherein the respondent No.2 is in process of recruitment of contractual employees. It is submitted that contractual employees cannot be replaced against contractual employees and in the instant case the respondent No.2 has done exactly the same. The project Mission Mangalam is an ongoing and never ending process and is not for a limited period. The work is of perennial nature. Though the respondent No.2 is registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act, meaning thereby hundred percent owned by the State Government wherein the respondent No.2 is acting as a private company. It is must for the respondent No.2 to follow the human resource manual, however the same is not complied with.
Page 40 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 7.2 To substantiate the aforesaid contentions Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions :-
(a) CAV judgment dated 24.7.2020 passed in the LPA No.1225 of 2019,
(b) SLP (Civil) No.30976 of 2017,
(c) AIR 1982 SC 879, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 8,
(d) 1986 (1) SCC 637 and
(e) 1986 (1) SCC 639 The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagu's case, Shivnarayan case and Somesh Thapliyal are reiterated and placing reliance on the aforesaid it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed.
Analysis :-
8. The respondent No.1 - State by Government Resolution dated 31.3.2010 established a company named Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Ltd., herein (for short 'GLPC')
- respondent No.2 herein. The Company is registered under the Page 41 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 to implement the State's livelihood initiative "Mission Mangalam' (Annexure-I page-128) and the National Rural Livelihood Mission - NRLM (Annexure-J page-130).
8.1 The aforesaid is with a view to bring the critical mass of resources, on a single platform of stake-holders like the banks, industries partners, micro-finance institutes and skill- imparting institutes etc., to deliver desired outcomes, formulating strategies towards achieving the goals of 'Missions Mangalam', improving the human index by empowering women and improving the living standards of the poor in the State.
8.2 The respondent No.1 - State vide Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 approved the organizational structure of the GLPC. The GLPC works through strategic partnership between large industries and Sakhi Mandals / Self Help Groups / Producer Groups / Service Groups / Collectives Page 42 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined of the poor, through decentralized Micro Enterprise Ventures. The promoting companies / entrepreneurs redesign the process where intensive tasks as job-works are undertaken by Self Help Groups in their respective homes or villages as self-employment activities. The main objectives of GLPC reads thus :-
(a) Empowering the Poor by organizing them into SHGs/Federations/other Collectives.
(b) Empower the poor through ensuring access to Financial Services.
(c) Augmenting existing livelihoods and enhancing incomes
(d) Explore livelihood opportunities through newer ventures
in rural service sector
(e) Developing Inclusive Value Chains
8.3 The vision and mission of GLPC (Annexure-L page-
133) :-
"Create a socio-economically developed Gujarat through inclusive growth strategies for empowering the underprivileged members of vulnerable communities/groups, resulting in them leading a dignified Page 43 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined life."
The GLPC while working towards the challenging vision of empowerment of poor women, has to ensure realization of this vision through participatory means and by convergence of prevalent government developmental schemes. The mission of the company could be stated as :
"We strive to serve the underprivileged women as well as members of vulnerable communities/groups in the state by organizing and capacitating their Groups and creating sustainable livelihoods. We ensure convergence of prevalent development programmes and schemes as well as forge partnerships with other non-government organizations and corporate houses for inclusive growth and the empowerment of the members of the groups served. In order to provide quality member-services, we strive to remain financially sound and secure. We will work towards establishing ourselves as a unique organization with deep abiding human values and maintaining the same."Page 44 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 8.4 In the facts of the present case, upon issuance of the public advertisement in January 2011 duly produced at page- 43 (Annexure-B) the petitioners herein applied under the said advertisement and are appointed on various posts as per the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 on contractual basis for a fixed term of three years on various terms and conditions as provided in the Schedule-1 Chapter-3 of the human resource manual approved by the Board of GLPC.
8.5 As averred by the petitioners approximately 254 in number are appointed by the respondent No.2 GLPC in the year 2011. The tenure of the appointment expired on 31.3.2014 upon completion of three years. By virtue of communication dated 11.6.2014 four months extension was granted to all the employees whose tenure lapsed by afflux of time. No details with regard to the appointment orders of the petitioners are either furnished or pleaded in the petition. No details emerge with regard to the position held by each of the petitioners. There are also no details with regard to the Page 45 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined emolument received / receivable by the petitioners. There is no receipt on record of the consolidated pay received by any of the petitioners. Upon perusal of the record it emerges that there is also no order terminating the services of the petitioners. The same is not disputed by Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel that the communication dated 11.6.2014 is not an order of termination. The petitioners approached the Court before expiry of their term of three years wherein by way of ad-interim relief the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo qua the petitioners by order dated 25.7.2014 which has continued till date.
8.6 It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as per Clause (3.3) method two; open advertisement followed by proficiency test (page 40). The petitioners herein successfully completed the requisite steps and are appointed in the respondent No.2. That the petitioners applied upon issuance of the advertisement in January 2011 (Annexure-B page 43).
Page 46 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 8.7 Upon perusal of the said advertisement it emerges that, it was open for retired persons from Government/Banks with experience and aptitude can also apply. No written test will be conducted for such candidates.
For the above-mentioned posts, it is requested to verify the details including job profile, eligibility criteria, salary package and other conditions as also to visit the website:
www.sid.co.in/glpc. Only the candidates who are eligible on the basis of merit will be included in the selection process.
8.8 This Court has perused the general appointment orders placed on record at Annexure-C (Collectively) which read thus :-
(a) Officer of appointment on fixed term employment basis -
General Manager (page-44)
(b) Officer of appointment on fixed term employment basis - Project Manager (page-51)
(c) Officer of appointment on fixed term employment basis - Page 47 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined District Livelihood Manager (page-58) From the aforesaid appointment orders, it emerges that the appointment is on contractual basis of three years and upon terms and conditions of the said contract. The terms and conditions of appointment order read as under:-
(a) On successful completion of probation period of three months, if performance is found to be unsatisfactory, on reviewing during the probation period the service may be terminated without notice or assigning any reasons or compensation.
(b) Upon successful completion of probation period, the three years fixed term employment FTE shall commence contract which include three months probation period.
(c) The said contract shall be renewable on satisfactory performance including achievement of target or such other criteria that may be decided by the management on the basis of mutual agreement.
(d) Unless renewed, the contract shall stand automatically Page 48 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined terminated on expiry of the period of contract without any notice or compensation.
8.9 Reliance is placed by the petitioners on an internal communication dated 31.3.2014 addressed to all the District Development Officers that the contractual appointment of such appointee including the petitioners working in State, District and Taluka levels to be continued till further orders.
It is pertinent to note that by further internal communication dated 11.6.2014 addressed to all District Development Officers, it was conveyed that the tenure of contractual appointees numbering 300 (including the petitioners, whose three years tenure came to an end on 31.3.2014 should be allowed only upto 31.7.2014).
9. Considering the case of the petitioners as it is the emoluments against various posts as provided in the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 reads thus :- Page 49 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Designation Experience Annual CTC Rs.
(years)
L5 General Manager State 10 to 15 7,20,000
L4 Manager District 06 to 10 6,00,000
L3 Project Officer State 2 to 06 4,80,000
L2 Asst. Project Officer 02 to 06 3,60,000
Dist.
L1 Project Officer Taluka 2 to 05 2,40,000
In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are entitled to the said emoluments qua the relevant post held by the petitioners.
9.1 Upon perusal of the G.R. dated 16.11.2010 it also emerges that considering the emoluments qua the relevant posts nothing is produced on record for the Court to arrive at a decision that the petitioners herein be granted the pay scale of a regular employee. The petitioners have failed to fortify their claim to seek parity with regularly appointed employees seeking equivalence as to which post and which pay-scale under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners not being government employees as per the Gujarat Page 50 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971.
The engagement of the petitioners is governed Chapter-3 of the Human Resource Manual approved by the Board of GLPC and the terms of the appointment orders. The petitioners are otherwise governed by the Bombay Industrial Employment Standing Orders applicable to the respondent No.2 for the purpose of appointment.
It is apposite to refer to Rule 1(c) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971 which reads thus :-
"They shall apply to all persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Gujarat whose conditions of services are regulated in accordance with the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution."
Admittedly the petitioners are not regularly appointed employees under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Page 51 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to be governed by the the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971. 9.2 Considering the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 the question of parity in pay-scale of regular employee is out of question qua retired persons.
10. It emerges that the petitioners herein have neither challenged any of the Government Resolutions or the Standing Orders or Chapter-3 of the Human Resource Manual. 10.1 In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are appointed in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010, in view thereof, there is no question of considering the case of the petitioners as irregularly appointed employees. The petitioners have failed to make out a case though having placed reliance on catena of judgments with respect to equal pay for equal work, as referred above, as to how the petitioners claim equal pay for equal wages in terms Page 52 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined of the following :-
a. Method of recruitment.
b. Level at which recruitment is made c. Hierarchy of service in a given cadre.
d. Minimum educational and technical qualification.
e. Avenues of Promotion.
f. The nature of duties and responsibilities.
g. Satisfaction level.
10.2 The contention raised by Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel that "Mission Mangalam" is not a temporary scheme, however it is a permanent scheme and that the respondent No.2 is in process of recruiting more employees with higher qualifications in place of the present employees and for that the respondent No.2 has given advertisement also wherein the respondent No.2 is in process of recruitment of contractual employees. Reliance is placed on the advertisement issued which is duly produced at page-179 for the year 2014-15.
The aforesaid would not in any manner change the Page 53 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined nature of the employment qua the petitioners herein having been appointed on contractual basis. It is always open for the respondent No.2 to enhance the qualifying criteria for the employment.
It is also contended that it is not possible to build repo with new employees recruited by the respondent No.2 whereas the petitioners have already reached to the remote areas and have started working with them for a long period of time.
The aforesaid contention cannot be a reason not to enhance the eligibility criteria for the appointment in the respondent No.2 Company. It is within the domain of the competent authority to lad down the qualifying criteria.
11. The submissions made by Ms. Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General requires consideration that the petitioners are in fact getting more remuneration than the government employees, the petitioners having pleaded that the petitioners are not getting minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Page 54 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
12. At this stage, it is apposite to deal with the judgments relied upon by Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners :-
(a) Letters Patent Appeal No.1225 of 2019, judgment dated 24.7.2020, wherein the issue was with respect to order of sudden dismissal of an employee after exemplary service from the appellant. The Hon'ble Division Bench was dealing with two questions, as stated in paragraph-15 of the said judgment;
one whether termination of services of the respondent is a simplicitor termination as sought to be worded in the termination order or is it found on well established designed to achieve the said end ? If so, whether adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and whether the principles of natural justice and fair play as would not have been attracted in such a situation was adhered to or not. Second question was, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of termination though worded as termination simplicitor Page 55 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined was in fact tainted by extraneous consideration.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case, wherein in absence of any order of termination and the petitioners herein having been appointed on contractual basis for fixed period of three years.
(b) Letters Patent Appeal No.712 of 2005 wherein the petitioners were employees of border wing of the home-guard, who were working full-time round the clock and throughout the year. The Hon'ble Division Bench considering the nature of their service held that, the benefits in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, as held in paragraph-9, relevant part read thus :-
"Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, the directions contained in the impugned judgments to give to the BWHGs concerned all benefits available to the State Government's servants and absorb them in its service with effect from 30.7.2003, the date of filing of the petition, are not required to be interfered in these appeals. In fact, the State Government has itself made a Scheme dated 06.4.2009 for absorption of the part-time BWHGs in the regular establishment of State Reserve Police Force (S.R.P.F.) Page 56 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined conferring all the benefits of pay scale, allowances etc.; but the BWHGs could not avail of that Scheme due to pendency of these proceedings and their claims based on very long past service. It was pointed out on behalf of 1285 BWHGs concerned that they stood to lose more than 30 crore rupees of arrears on account of the appointed date of absorption ignoring their services for the period prior to the year 2002, and the calculation of their retiral benefits will also be affected. That point and grievance was not pressed expressly in consideration of the prospects of the BWHGs getting all the benefits, with arrears, immediately with effect from the aforesaid date. In view of the unnecessarily prolonged pendency of these appeals, it has to be clarified and directed, in the interest of justice, that the arrears payable to all the 1285 BWHGs concerned in these appeals shall be counted and calculated on the basis of their absorption in full-time permanent service on the equivalent posts with effect from 30.7.2003 and the amounts of difference of salary and unpaid allowances due at the end of every year, i.e. 30.7.2004, 30.7.2005, 30.7.2006 et. al, shall be capitalized and paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. The current wages of the BWHGs concerned shall be calculated on the basis of their absorption in service of the State since 30.7.2003 and paid accordingly with all the increments and admissible allowances at par with the State armed police. The total amounts due as aforesaid towards increments, unpaid allowances and arrears with interest due upto the date of payment as also the benefits at Page 57 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined par with the State armed police shall be paid within two months from the date of this order, failing which, the total amount due as on 01.06.2011 to each of the BWHGs concerned shall have to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. for the subsequent period. The other BWHGs whose petitions and appeals are already disposed by earlier orders and who have availed the benefit of the Scheme of their absorption in regular service shall not be, as declared on their behalf by learned senior Advocate Mr.Y.N.Oza, entitled to any relief on the basis of this judgment. Accordingly, subject to the clarifications and directions as aforesaid, all the appeals are dismissed and all the civil applications made therein are disposed as not surviving, with no order as to costs."
The petitioner working as part-time border wing home- guard could not be treated differently from the permanent staff.
In the facts of the present case, no details with respect to any permanent employee are placed on record. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
(c) In the case of State of Punjab and Ors., vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148, wherein the Hon'ble Page 58 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Apex Court was considering the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and held that temporary employee possessing requisite qualification and appointed against the posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities as being discharged by regular employees holding same/corresponding posts, were entitled to claim wages on a par with minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same posts.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case, the petitioners having not placed on record at to how their duties and responsibilities are same as other posts with different designation and that the petitioners herein are placed in a lower scale by the GLPC.
(d) In the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union in the Civil Appeal No.4092-4093 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a daily-wager who was working for more than 10 Page 59 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined years for the period from 1984 to 1994. Considering Clauses 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV dated 27.7.1989, wherein it was agreed that the employer shall engage contract labour with respect to jobs which are permanent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed not to engage contract labour with respect to jobs which are of permanent and perennial in nature. It was further observed that such jobs shall be executed through regular employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para-20 that the remaining workers also stand on the same footing as regularized employees, and therefore they are wrongly not granted the benefit of regularization.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are appointed for a period of 03 years on contractual basis are governed by the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010. The petitioners have not pleaded as to how the petitioners are similarly placed to other employees working in the GLPC having extended the benefit of regular employees. Page 60 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(e) In the case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs. Manishbhai Mayanbhai Mod in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench in para-4.1 at page-9 of the judgment held that termination of an employee upon issuance of show cause notice was held to be unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and in breach of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 and the same is also violative of the principles of natural justice.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are not government employees and are not governed by Rules, 1971. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
(f) In the case of Pranjit Taluka Education Society vs. National Council for Teachter Regional Director in Special Civil Application No.3205 of 2009 and allied matters, the Hon'ble Division Bench was considering the case of an education institution whereby by order passed by the NCTE, whereby the NCTE cancelled the recognition of the petitioner Society, Page 61 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined having engaged professors, lacking in qualifications, subsequently. The Hon'ble Division in para-23 held that the regulations framed by the NCT from time to time make changes in qualification of teaching and non-teaching staff will also be applicable with respect to the existing staff.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein the petitioner herein are governed by the terms and conditions of the G.R. 16.11.2010.
(g) In the case of Randhir Singh Versus Union Of India, reported in 1982 (1) SCC 618, equal pay of equal work, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment was dealing with the principles of equal pay for equal work. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the pay scale between drivers in Delhi police force working in Delhi administration and Central Government. In para-2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the case of the petitioners as regards violation of Article 14 and the petitioners have demonstrated as to how the petitioners are getting lower pay-scale compared to similarly Page 62 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined situated employees.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein have not placed on record any document to show as to how the petitioners are paid lower pay-scale.
(h) In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1986 (1) SCC 637, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering pay-scale of Class- IV employees working in Nehru Yuvak Kendra as a daily-wager with the Ministry of Education. In para-3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded that the petitioners are working as Class-IV employees for more than 12 years and are seeking equal pay for equal work with other Class-IV employees of other department of the State Government.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioners herein have failed to place on record any document to show that the petitioners herein are discriminated and failed to show any such discrimination with respect to pay-scale. Page 63 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(i) Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SLP (C) No.5880 of 2024, Jaggo vs. Union of India.
In the said judgment the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 were appointed as Safaiwalis in the years 1993, 1998 and 1999 respectively whereas the petitioners No.4 and 5 were appointed as Mali and Khalasi in the years 2000 and 2004 respectively in the Central Water Commission (for short CWC) on ad hoc basis and they were paid lumpsum monthly emolument. The petitioners claimed their service to be regularized before the Tribunal in terms of DOP and TOM dated 11.12.2006 issued in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC page-1.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration that long span of service held that, irrespective of the department Page 64 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined or office the nature of work, the petitioners were performing essential duties that were indispensable in day-to-day functioning of the offices of CWC. Irrespective of the office of department or office, the nature of work remained the same, not requiring any specific academic qualifications. In the said commission itself Safaiwalis with lesser number of years have been regularized and therefore Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners are governed by the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010, having been appointed for a period of three years, which upon passage of time has lapsed. There is no order on record extending the contract of the petitioners herein, having approached the Court before expiry of their terms and are continued by the interim order dated 25.7.2014. The petitioners herein are in receipt of requisite qualifications and have been appointed on contractual basis in accordance with the human resource manual. The aforesaid judgment in view Page 65 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined thereof does not come to the rescue of the present petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein are discriminated by any action at the instance of the respondents herein.
(j) In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors in Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 the petitioners were appointed as daily-wagers, later on appointed on contractual basis. In the year 2000, the services of the petitioners came to be regularized on minimum pay-scale. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, by order dated 25.7.2006 the said petitioners were conferred the status of temporary employees with retrospective effect from 1.10.2002. However, the services of the said petitioners were not regularized. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the ratio down in Umadevi (Supra) held that the ratio laid down in Umadevi is used as a tool for not regularizing the services of the incumbent. It is held that the petitioners herein are not backdoor entries and in view thereof it was held that there was a direction issued way Page 66 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined back in the year 1999 to consider the regularization of the appellants, however the regularization was not done in view thereof the appellants were directed to be regularized from the date when they were appointed as temporary workers with effect from 2.10.2002.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein petitioners herein are appointed on a contract period of 03 years in accordance with the G.R. dated 6.11.2010.
(k) In the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Versus A.Rajappa, reported in 1978 (2) SCC 213.
Mr. Oza, the learned Senior Counsel relied on para-22 of the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the meaning and scope of industry under Section 2(j) - what the term includes and excludes with respect to charitable institution, clubs, educational institutions, municipalities, research institutes, cooperative societies, establishment in liberal professions, if industry - Agencies and Page 67 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined departments of the Government engaged in any non-sovereign functions when deemed to be industry indicated.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment decided the scope, meaning and ambit of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which define "industry" to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. On the question as to what falls within and what falls outside the statutory concept of "industry".
Considering the aforesaid issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under :-
"12. The functional focus of this industrial legislation and the social perspective of Part IV of the Paramount Law drive us to hold that the dual goals of the Act are contentment of workers and peace in the industry and judicial interpretation should be geared to their fulfilment, not their frustration. A worker-oriented statute must receive a construction where, conceptually, the keynote thought must be the worker and the com-munity, as the Constitution has shown concern for them, inter alia, in Articles 38, 39 and 43.Page 68 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined In paragraph-187 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "in view of the difficulty experienced by all of us in defining the true denotation of the term "industry" and divergence of opinion in regard thereto -- as has been the case with the said Bench also - it is opined that, it is high time that the Legislature steps in with a comprehensive bill to clear up the fog and remove the doubts and set at rest once for all the controversy which crops up from time to time in relation to the meaning of the aforesaid term rendering it necessary for larger Benches of this Court to be constituted which are driven to the necessity of evolving a working formula to cover particular cases."
The aforesaid judgment extensively deals with the definition of term "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and opines that the Large Bench be constituted to resolve the ambiguity with respect to true denotation of the said term "industry".
(l) In the case of Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr., in Civil Appeal Nos.3922-3925 of 2017 was filed by teachers, who were Page 69 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined substantively appointed after going through selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such appellants were entitled to claim appointment to be in substantive capacity against the permanent sanctioned post and become a member of teaching faculty of central university under the Act 2009.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
(m) In the case of Rajkaran Singh and Ors., vs. Union of India and Ors., arising out of SLP No.30976 of 2017, the appellant in the said Appeal were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits Fund of the Special Frontier Force in various positions such as Junior Accountant, Accountant, Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on running pay-scales. The SSD fund was the welfare initiative funded through personal contributions of the SFF funds from their salaries. Upon having been engaged as above the appellants also received T.A. D.A., H.R.A. Special Page 70 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Security Allowance, Gratuity, Bonus, Winter Allowances and all the other benefits such as fourth and fifth Pay Commission. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-33 held that the appellants were formerly classified as temporary employees, however bears the substantial hallmarks of a regular government employee. Denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of the temporary status without due consideration of such factors, as referred, is held to have been over simplification of their employment relationship with the government. It is held that the aforesaid runs risk of creating a class of employees who despite serving the government for decades in manner indistinguishable from regular employees are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to government servants.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid set of facts directed that the aforesaid was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that such employees were directed to be granted the benefit of Sixth CPC, Sixth Pay Commission and the RP Rules to the appellants shall not form Page 71 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined a precedent so as to have a detrimental effect on the financial help of the SSD Fund. The Sixth Pay Commission including pensionery benefits under the revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 to the appellants in the said Appeal in the same terms and conditions being afforded to their peers in the Account Section of SSF HQ Estt. No.22.
13. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein have not placed on record any documents to show as to consider the case of the petitioners as regular employees and the petitioners herein are in service by interim order dated 25.7.2014 and can be said to be "litigious" employment.
14. The right of regularization of a person appointed on contractual basis depends on the express and/or implied terms of contract. It is well settled principle of law that where the appointment is contractual and the appointment comes to an end by efflux of time, the appointee has no right to continue in the post and the fact that even after expiry of the original Page 72 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined period the services are continued from time to time, the same would not confer any such right. There can be no regularization of a contractual employee upon completion/expiry of contract.
The petitioners herein appointed purely on a contractual basis by the respondents on specific/express conditions that the appointment of the petitioners is for a limited period of three years and the same is also on certain terms and conditions and have no right to be absorbed permanently in regular cadre.
15. Position of law :-
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are appointed on contractual basis under the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions, however the petitioners are seeking the pay-scale of regular government employees.
(a) In the opinion of this Court, decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 3333 in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors., vs. Page 73 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Anita and Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered an identical facts held in paragraphs 16 and 17 that once the appointments were purely contractual, the respondent shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of a permanent service in government. In the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court the appointment of the respondents also were made initially for 11 months but were renewed twice and after serving for maximum contractual period the services of the respondents came to an end and the government initiated the process of fresh selection.
The Hon'ble Apex Court held that after having accepted the contractual appointment the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. It is further held that the respondents are not precluded from applying for the said post afresh subject to the satisfaction of the other eligibility criteria. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 11 to 17 of the said judgment which read thus :-
"11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Page 74 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined judgment and the material on record.
12. In the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 while creating 471 posts in various cadres including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors in clause (3) of the said Resolution, it was made clear that the posts created ought to be filled up on contractual basis. Clause (3) reads as under:-
"The said posts instead of being filled in the regular manner should be kept vacant and should be filled on the contract basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the government or having prepared the Recruitment Rules should be filled as per the provisions therein."
13. Subsequently, the said Resolution was modified by Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. In the said Resolution, the column specifying "Pay Scale" was substituted with column "Combined Permissible Monthly Pay + Telephone & Travel Expenses". However, there was no change in the decision of the government on filling up the posts on contractual basis. Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006 stipulates the terms and conditions of the contractual appointments. Clauses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' read as under:-
"A) The appointment of the said posts would be completely on contractual basis. These officers/employees would not be counted as government employees.
B) The said appointments should be made on contract basis firstly for 11 months. After 11 months the term of the agreement could be increased from time to time if necessary.
Whereas, the appointing authority would take the precaution Page 75 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined while extending the terms in this manner that, at one time this term should not be more than 11 months. The appointment in this way could be made maximum three times. Thereafter, if the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such candidate is necessary then such candidate would have to again face the selection process. C) The concerned appointing authority at the time of the appointment would execute an agreement with the concerned candidate in the prescribed format. The prescribed format of the agreement is given in Appendix 'B'. It would be the responsibility of the concerned office to preserve all the documents of the agreement.
D) Except for the combined pay and permissible telephone and travel expenses (more than the above mentioned limit) any other allowances would not be admissible for the officers/employees being appointed on contract basis."
14. The intention of the State Government to fill up the posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis is manifest from the above clauses in Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. While creating 471 posts vide Resolution dated 21.08.2006, the Government made it clear that the posts should be filled up on contractual basis as per terms and conditions prescribed by the Government. As per clause 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the initial contractual period of appointment is eleven months and there is a provision for extension of contract for further eleven months. Clause 'B' makes it clear Page 76 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined that the appointment could be made maximum three times and extension of contract beyond the third term is not allowed. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such candidates is necessary then such candidates would again have to face the selection process.
15. It is relevant to note that the respondents at the time of appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with Appendix 'B' attached to Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the government. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement which read as under:-
"1. The First Party hereby agrees to appoint Shri/Smt._________ (Party No. II) as a ________ on contract basis for a period of 11 months commencing from __________ to __________ (mention date) on consolidated remuneration of Rs.___________ (Rupees _____________ only) per month, and said remuneration will be payable at the end of each calendar month according to British Calendar. It is agreed that IInd party shall not be entitled for separate T.A. and D.A. during the contract period..
2. ........
3. .......
4. .........
5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a further two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to the satisfaction Page 77 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined of Competent Authority, and on its recommendations.
6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest, benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the Government."
16. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.
17. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in the Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 and also the terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents with the government. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred but merely because the posts were Page 78 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. When the government has taken a policy decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis, the tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature."
(b) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors., vs. Umadevi and Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, while considering the case of temporary employees engaged on daily-wages in the commercial tax-department in some of the districts of State of Karnataka having worked in the said department on such engagement for more than ten years and were held to be entitled to be made permanent employees of the department and were held to be entitled to the benefits of regular employees.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are contractual employees having been appointed as per Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010.
(c) In the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. vs. P. J. Page 79 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Kampavat and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1685, wherein the Supreme Court held that, where the Chief Minister and Ministers appointed persons of their choice in their respective establishments and the order appointing the employees expressly stated not only that their services shall be terminated at any time without giving any notice and without assigning any reason but also that their appointment is for a limited period conterminous with the concerned minister's tenure and they were also asked to execute an undertaking in the above terms which they did the appointment was purely a contractual appointment conterminous with the tenure of the Minister's establishment, at whose choice and instance they were appointed.
It was held bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said appointees in question could not be deemed to be temporary Govt. servants within the meaning of the Bombay Civil Service Rules inasmuch as the terms of their appointment clearly amount to an otherwise provision within the meaning of the non obstante clause ("except where it is otherwise expressed or Page 80 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined implied") with which Rule 2 begins and procedure in Rule 33 for terminating services of temporary servants was not attracted.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11 held that the appointment of the respondent was pure and simple contractual appointment and that such appointment does not attract and is outside the purview of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Since he tenure of the Ministers at whose instance and on whose recommendations they were appointment has come to an end on 10.11.1989 and their service also came to an end simultaneously. No order of termination as such was necessary for putting an end to their service much less a prior notice. They ought to go out in the manner they come in.
16. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the position of law, as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are appointed by Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 under the "Mission Mangalam" Scheme. The petitioners herein are governed by the human resources manual Page 81 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined approved by the Board of GLPC Chapter-3 page-36. The eligibility criteria of each of the position is prescribed by the respondent No.2 GLPC wherein even the retired person is eligible to apply. Evaluation of the petitioners is undertaken by external expert and the petitioners herein are not governed by the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1971 which are statutory rules governing the employees in the government service. The communication dated 11.6.2014 impugned herein not being an order of termination of the services of the petitioners, the prayer (C) as such would not survive.
17. No legal right accrues in favour of the petitioners herein to be granted the regular pay-scale of a regularly appointed employee in the facts of the present case. The prayer to regularize the services of the petitioners fail in light of the aforesaid observations.
18. In the opinion of this Court, having considered the prayers as prayed for in the present petition, the petitioners herein are entitled to emoluments against the post as stated in Page 82 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10346/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined para-4 of the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petitions stand dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED After pronouncement of the judgment Mr. H. J. Dholakia, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has requested to continue status-quo granted by order dated 25.7.2014 for eight weeks. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General has objected to such request.
Considering the aforesaid request, the status-quo granted by order dated 25.7.2014 to continue for a period of four weeks from receipt of this order.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED Page 83 of 83 Uploaded by K.K. SAIYED(HC00169) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:59:42 IST 2025