Pandya Mitesh Kailashbabu vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Pandya Mitesh Kailashbabu vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2021

Bench: A.S. Supehia

     C/SCA/1210/2021                            ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1210 of 2021
==========================================================
                       PANDYA MITESH KAILASHBABU
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SL VAISHYA(960) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP ) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                            Date : 07/12/2021
                             ORAL ORDER

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"6.A) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application.

B) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass order direct to the respondents the appointment letter dtd.7/3/2013 condition no. 1 of 11 month is not binding to the petitioner and petitioner service is continue. There is breach of condition so that conditions should be quashed only for the petitioner and other illegal conditions should be quashed.

C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass order for quash and set aside the removal order dtd.19/12/2020 from his service and also direct to the respondents that he should be treated as a permanent and service should be continued in his post of clerk who was appointed as guard.

D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass order the appointment letter dtd.3/7/2013 kindly to stay and the execution and implementation, operation of removal the petitioner dtd.19/12/2020 may be stay and petitioner should be protected in his service till the final disposal of this writ petition and also direct the respondents that condition no.1 of appointment is not binding to the petitioner and also direct to the respondent that petitioner should be treated as a permanent servant of their department from the date of appointment."

Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022

C/SCA/1210/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021

2. The petitioner is challenging the order of removal dated 19.12.2020. The prayer Nos.6A and 6B suggest that the petitioner is seeking deletion of condition No.1 to 11 of the appointment order dated 07.03.2013 and the same are not binding to him.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was serving from six years and he could not have been removed after rendering such service and accordingly the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities not to remove him. He has also placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Vs. Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana, (2007) 3 GCD 2133, Narendrakumar Narsinhbhai Vankar Vs. Manager Medicinal And Aromatic Plants, (2016) 4 GLR 3534, State of Gujarat Vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor , (2021) 2 GLR 1211, Bilimora Nagarpalika Vs. Jashuben Jashavantbhai Solanki, (2013) 1 GLR 845 and on the judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011. In support of his submissions, he has submitted that in all the aforesaid judgements, it is held that if an employee has completed 240 days of work, he cannot be removed without notice and hence, since the petitioner was removed without notice, the Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/1210/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021 petitioner may be continued in service. It is further submitted that "respondents have mischief with the muster roll" and the muster roll was forged and hence, the impugned order of removal may be set aside. It is also submitted that the petitioner, though was appointed as Guard, he was giveng the work of Computer Clerk. It is submitted that the respondents are prejudice against the petitioner and hence, the impugned order may be cancelled. No further submissions are advanced.

4. From the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed by the appointment order dated 07.03.2013 on contractual basis for 11 months on the fixed pay of Rs.4,500/-. By the order dated 19.12.2020, the service of the petitioner has been put to an end as his contract has not been renewed. It appears that the petitioner has continuously worked on contractual basis for all these years. The submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner would suggest that he has made allegations with regard to forging of his muster roll. He is also claiming that he has worked for 240 days.

5. The aforesaid disputed facts cannot be scrutinized by this Court while exercising the power under article 226 of the Constitution of Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/1210/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021 India. An appropriate remedy would be to approach the Labour Court. The judgements, upon which the reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, cannot rescue him because the same do not in any manner deal with the issue raised in the writ petition.

6. In light of the foregoing observations, the present writ petition is rejected.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court