Gujarat High Court
Amitbhai Rajubhai Beradiya vs Vice Chancellor & 2 on 3 May, 2017
Author: S.G. Shah
Bench: S.G. Shah
C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1189 of 2017
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11999 of 2016
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11999 of 2016
==========================================================
AMITBHAI RAJUBHAI BERADIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AD OZA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 03/05/2017
ORAL ORDER
Order in Civil Application
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal P. Thakkar for the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha appearing for Mr. A. D. Oza for the respondents No.1 and 2 is requesting to keep the matter pending.
2. This is a really disturbing situation and in fact the real reason for pendency of the cases before the Court. It becomes clear that everyday, more than 100 matters are listed before the Court because of non-availability of total number of courts. This results into a situation that if any matter is listed in first 50 serial numbers, then, only because one of the advocate remains Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017 C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER away from the court when the matter is called out, then there would be less chance of recalling the matter because of total number of matters listed per day and, thereby, it would be automatically adjourned even without requesting the court for adjourning the matter and then it is stated before court on the next date that the matter was not taken up by the Court. To avoid such situation, there is a need to take up all the matters as and when they are called out and to pass appropriate orders.
3. Therefore, request by Mr. Jha is rejected and Mr. Thakkar is allowed to argue the matter. Mr. Thakkar has submitted that though the petitioner has been appointed and worked from the year 2011 till 2016, and thereby, though respondents are supposed to regularise his service, they have discontinued the services of the petitioner though work was available with them and moreover they are going to appoint a new Sweeper to carry out the same work; thereby, instead of appointing them on contractual basis directly, as petitioner was appointed for last more than 5 years, now, respondents are entering into labour contract with some private agency. It is alleged that such agency is having political support. Irrespective of such allegation regarding political support, the basic fact remains that the petitioner has worked for five years on contractual basis with the respondent, such orders are placed on record Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017 C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER collectively at Annexures - A to C from pages No. 10 to 14, which confirms that the services of the petitioner has been continued on 11 months basis right from the year 2011 till he was removed from service in the month of December, 2016. Amongst such orders, an order dated 31.3.2016 at Annexure-C, discloses the glaring facts, when the respondents have passed an order that to save the money, the petitioner is directed to work as Driver also in addition to his duties as Sweeper from 1.4.2016 to 19.5.2016 and he has to continue such duty as Driver till the work of examination is over and that for such additional work, he would not be paid any additional allowance. This is nothing, but a clear exploitation of a Class- IV employee by the respondents on 2.4.2016, the copy of such order is at Annexure-D (page 15). The respondents have the audacity to even assign a serious duty to the petitioner by addressing him a communication as if he is serving as a Driver and conveyed him to carry out particular serious work of transporting question papers and answer papers at different places.
4. In view of such fact, when there was no interim relief granted by this court at the relevant time of issuance of notice in main petition on 20.7.2016, and more particularly thereafter, when respondents have put an end to the services of the petitioner somewhere in the month of December, 2016, the petitioner - applicant has no option, but to file this Civil Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017 C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER Application on 20.6.2016 seeking following relief in paragraph 11:-
"a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India can be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the applicants in service with all consequential benefits.
b. Be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with continuity of service and will all consequential benefits and pay all arrears of amount as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court with interest.
c. Pending admission and final disposal of the present application, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to take the applicant back in service forthwith and pay salary accordingly. This Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the due salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement to the applicant forthwith with interest.
d. Be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost to the present applicant.
e. Any other relief which this Hon. Court deem fit and proper in interest of justice together with cost."
5. In view of filing of such Civil Application and more particularly, after a detailed order on 24.4.2017, now, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply on 1.5.2017. In such reply, it has been contended that they are engaging such Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017 C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER employee/s on contractual basis pursuant to G.R. dated 30.3.2015 whereby, now, they are directed to outsource the services of Class-IV employees. This makes it clear that though there is necessity of Class-IV employees and though petitioner has worked as such for last five years, in total disregard of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 so also in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD Employees' Union reported in (2013)12 SCC 417, respondents are taking disadvantage of their position by removing the Class-IV employees, who are serving with them for couple of years, and thereafter, engaging fresh persons that too through some agency probably so as to avoid payment of proper salary and other benefits to such persons. It cannot be ignored that posts of Peon are 85 in number and out of them, only 66 are filled-up as per statement in Schedule-A, copy of which is produced at page 23 and 24. It is also now clear that though petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on contractual basis and though one post of Driver was also vacant as per such Schedule and thereby, though respondents have assigned duty zof Driver from the applicant, now they are keen to put an end to his services so as to appoint other persons as per their whims.
6. In view of such facts and circumstances, at present, let there be interim relief in terms of Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017 C/CA/1189/2017 ORDER paragraphs 11(b) and (c), which is in confirmation with prayer clause 13(e) and 13(f) of the main petition. Civil Application is allowed and is disposed of.
Order in Special Civil Application List the matter on 27.7.2017.
(S.G. SHAH, J.) binoy Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 23:19:49 IST 2017