Gujarat High Court
Mahendrakumar vs State on 3 July, 2012
Author: D.H.Waghela
Bench: D.H.Waghela, G.B.Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2012/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2012 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15066 of 2011
=========================================================
MAHENDRAKUMAR
DASHRATHLAL JOSHI, - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YH VYAS for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR. RAKESH R. PATEL,AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 03/07/2012
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The appeal is heard for final disposal by consent.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2011 of learned single Judge of this Court whereby his petition for higher wages has been dismissed. It is clarified, at the out set, by Mr. Y.H.Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, that the appellant did not and does not claim any regularisation in service or regular service under the respondent. However, the undisputed facts are that initially he was appointed as a Safai Kamdar on temporary and adhoc basis on 16.06.2004. However, his services came to be terminated on 27.03.2006. Thereafter, he was again appointed afresh on 18.04.2011 on part-time basis. He submitted that by virtue of decision dated 26.08.2010 of Division Bench of this Court in SCA No. 2492/2009, the direction issued therein to pay Rs. 3500/- per month was applicable in the facts of the appellant's case. He relied upon subsequent order dated 8.2.2012 of learned single judge of this Court in CA NO. 6364/2011 in SCA No. 198/2010 whereby, in similar circumstances, the authorities were directed to pay to the petitioners therein salary at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month. Learned single Judge has, in that oral order dated 8.2.2012, relied not only upon the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench but the resolution dated 29.04.2010 of the State Government, revising the fixed wages, taking into consideration the pay revision of regular employees. It appears that, according to that resolution, as against the minimum pay scale for the lowest category of class-IV employees, as per the 5th Pay Commission, of Rs. 2550 -3200, against which the pay fixed by the Government was Rs. 1500/- and that was revised to fixed pay of Rs. 3500/-. Thus, there was no fixed pay below the revised pay of Rs. 3500/- for the lowest category of employees.
3. In the facts of the present case, the respondents have stated by filing an affidavit-in- reply on behalf of respondent no.2 that the petitioner is only a part-time employee, paid from the contingency fund of the Government. He has not been regularly appointed on sanctioned post after following the due recruitment process. It is, however, not in dispute that as stated in the appointment order dated 18th April, 2011 itself, the petitioner is required to discharge his duties as water bearer/sanitary worker for six hours a day. Therefore, the facts of the petitioner's case are pari materia the same as in the case before learned single Judge in which the aforesaid order dated 8.2.2012 was made. No other argument is canvassed on behalf of the respondents and it could not be shown as to how the case of the petitioner could be distinguished from the petitioners' case in the aforesaid case, decided by learned single judge.
4. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is required to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall be paid the required minimum wages from the date of his appointment, in terms of resolution dated 29.04.2010 of the State Government. The Civil Application does not survive in view of the final disposal of the appeal.
( D.H.WAGHELA, J.) (G.B.SHAH, J.) cmj/ Top