Bimalbhai Dineshchandra Patni & vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 8 July, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Bimalbhai Dineshchandra Patni & vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 8 July, 2015

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

         C/SCA/11368/2014                                    ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11368 of 2014

==========================================================
             BIMALBHAI DINESHCHANDRA PATNI & 1....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                             Date : 08/07/2015
                               ORAL ORDER

1. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners serving with the respondent No.2Gujarat Maritime Board, have prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

I. To direct the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners and the petitioners be treated as permanent employees after completion of 5 years of service and be given all the benefits of permanent employees including regular payscale on the date the petitioners completed their 5 years of service;

II. to direct respondents to extend all the benefits of regular post with regular payscale in favour of the petitioners from the date they have completed 10 years of service as per the G.R. dated 17.101988;

III. To direct respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioners after placing the Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/11368/2014 ORDER petitioners in payscale after completion of 10 years of service;

IV. Be pleased to direct respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees after they have completed 10 years of service and be pleased to direct respondents to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioners treating them permanent after their completion of 10 years of service.

(B). Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to terminate services of the petitioners;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted."

2. The petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as an Apprentice in the trade of Wireman by the respondentBoard for three years with effect from 25th September, 1989. The petitioner No.2 was appointed as an Apprentice in the trade of Wireman by order of respondent No.2Board with effect from 30th March, 1989 to 25th March, 1993. Both the petitioners successfully completed the apprenticeship training of three years. They were asked to undergo the apprentice test conducted by the Board. The petitioners successfully cleared the test. Both the petitioners have put in more than 20 years of services with the respondent Board and are praying for their services to be regularized. In the affidavitinreply filed by the respondent Board, the following averments have been made in paragraph No.15: Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/11368/2014 ORDER "15. With reference to para 2.14m, 2.15 2.16 & 2.17 the contents therein are denied. It denied that the petitioner is adopting a pick and choose policy and that the respondent is acting in a discriminatory manner visa is the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners appointment is not as per the resolution of the respondent board and yet as the petitioner has worked for long spell of time the petitioners name has been recommended and forwarded to the State Government for getting their approval. It is submitted that the petitioner do not have a right to regularized and get the advantage and benefits of the 1988 Government Resolution of the State Government. It is submitted that this respondent cannot absorb the petitioner on the permanent basis on the permanent posts without the prior approval of the State Government."

3. Thus, it appears from the averments referred to above that the respondent Board has already forwarded a proposal to the State Government, seeking approval for regularization of the services of the two petitioners. However, as usual, it appears that such proposal is pending with the State Government as on today, and no decision has been taken so far.

4. In the result, this application is partly allowed. The State Government is directed to look into the proposal forwarded by the respondent Board as stated in paragraph No.15 of its reply and take an appropriate decision on the same within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. State Government shall inform the Board about its decision in writing.

5. Mr. Dave also pointed out that pending the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/11368/2014 ORDER consideration of the proposal many juniors have already been regularized in service. Mr. Dave also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others vs. P.W.D. Employees Union and others reported in 2013 (2) GLH 692.

6. With the above, this petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court