- (1.)By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents for not allotting the work as usual to the petitioner and also prayed for regularization of his services under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as he has completed 10 years of service and also prayed for continuation of services.
(2.)It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined the services as Daily Wager at Karaghogha Irrigation Project on 21.01.1988. As the petitioner was continued in the service without break , he applied for regularization before the Higher Authority. Thereafter, a letter was written by the Executive Engineer, Kutch Irrigation Division, Bhuj-Kutch on 04.08.1997 to his subordinate to dismiss the petitioner along with other person. The said letter was challenged by the petitioner by way of preferring Special Civil Application No. 6720 of 1997. This Court by its order dated 01.04.1998 passed order stating that the letter dated 04.08.1997 does not affect the service of the petitioner so far as regularization is concerned. However, there is no foundation for apprehension of any other action as on the part of the authority which may warrant the grant of relief in absolute term in favour of the petitioner that their services cannot be terminated on any ground whatsoever. The High Court further observed that the question whether the petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service in terms of requirement of said resolution is again a question which requires determination on the basis of material depends on whether the petitioner has completed 10 years of continuous service in terms of resolution. The State Government has to decide that issue which has neither considered so far nor has refused to consider the same. The respondent has not alloted work to the petitioner by wrongly interpreting the order dated 01.04.1998. Hence, this petition.
(3.)It is required to be noted that identical matter being Special Civil Application No. 4890 of 1998 came to be allowed vide judgement and order dated 19.06.2001. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
" 6. It is required to be noted that, initially, the petitioner was given the work as a Rojamdar as back as in the year 1988 and he seems to have been continued from time to time. However, there is some dispute about the completion of days in a particular year. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for this Court to give any positive finding whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.l0.1988 or not. However, considering the affidavit-in-reply of the Department and considering the fact that as back as in 1988, the petitioner was given the work as a Rojamdar for the first time, I direct the respondents to give such benefit of a Rojamdar / Daily wager, and, for that purpose, even if there may be some intervening breaks, his seniority may be considered for giving such daily rated work considering the fact that he is doing this work since 1988. As stated earlier, the petitioner may be provided with work if the work is available since the petitioner has first entered for such work as back as in 1988.

7. Now, so far as the question of giving benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is concerned, there is a dispute between the parties about the completion of days, etc. Therefore, instead of giving any direction, the petitioner may submit a representation to the respondent, with all necessary particulars about his record. The respondent, thereafter, on receiving the representation, will decide the said question and will find out the total number of days' service the petitioner has put in and for that purpose, even the Muster Roll, if it is available, may be taken into consideration. After receiving the representation from the petitioner, the concerned authority may take such decision whether the petitioner is entitled to such benefit by giving a positive finding about the total number of days and for that purpose, whatever evidence the petitioner may produce may be taken into consideration. If the petitioner is having any documentary evidence, like pay slip, etc., it would be open for him to rely upon the said documentary evidence at the time of making representation to the authority. After receiving such representation, the authority may decide the same and may also consider whatever evidence the applicant has relied upon in his representation. The authority may also consider whether any junior to the petitioner was appointed and whether he was continued or not. On the basis of the available material, thereafter, appropriate decision may be taken whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the G.R. or not, or whether any benefit of regularization can be made available to the petitioner or not. Decision in this respect may be taken within two months from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. It is needless to state that such representation may be taken into consideration according to the Rules and Regulations. However, considering the fact that since considerable time the petitioner was allowed to serve as Rojamdar, the Department may take just and proper decision in this behalf. It is needless to say that in case the question regarding regularization of the petitioner's services is decided against him, it would be open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the G.R. or not as it is for the authority to decide the same on the basis of the available evidence. This petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs."