AMARSINH MADHAVJI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.C.H.Vora appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.Shraddha Trivedi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 so also Mr.Jayesh Barot, learned advocate for Mr.H.S.Munshaw on behalf of the respondent No.3. Though notice of Rule has been served on the respondent No.2 but no one remained present on behalf of the respondent No.2.

(2.) In the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 19th December, 1991 and interim relief was refused by this Court on 17th February, 1992. Affidavit-in-reply are filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3, whereas no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.

(3.) It is most pertinent to note that this is a case of gross exploitation of the employee who is working as a Watchman with the respondent authorities. The facts of this case shows that the petitioner has been appointed as Watchman by the respondent No.3 by order dated 1st July, 1974 on temporary basis. A copy of the appointment order dated 1st July, 1974 is placed on record. Initially the petitioner was working for respondent No.3 - District Development Officer, District Panchayat - Kachchh at Bhuj and thereafter with effect from 1st May, 1978 the petitioner has been taken up by the respondent No.2. During the service of the present petitioner, service of the petitioner was terminated on 31st August, 1984 by the respondents. However, said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Civil Court, Kachchh at Bhuj. That said Civil Suit has been fully decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 10th January, 1989 and Civil Court come to the conclusion that termination order which has been passed against the present petitioner is illegal and bad and therefore, set aside said order with direction to grant all benefits to the present petitioner. Today, learned advocate Mr.C.H.Vora has placed on record the decision of the Appeal given by the Extra Assistant Judge, Bhuj in Civil Regular Appeal No.21 / 1989 filed by the State Government and other respondent. That said appeal also came to be dismissed by Appellate Court on 2nd January, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that after decision rendered by the Civil Court, the petitioner has been reinstated in service and continuously working with the respondents. Thus, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 on 1st July, 1974 on temporary basis and on that occasion, his daily wage was fixed at Rs.4.00 as per the order of appointment dated 7th July, 1974. What is disheartening to note that this daily wage of Rs.4/which was admittedly fixed at the time of appointment on 1st July, 1974, is continued even in the year 2001. Learned advocate Mr.Vora after having instruction from the counterpart has made a statement before this Court that presently also the petitioner is getting daily wage at the rate of Rs.4/only. The petitioner has been in continuous service from the year 1974 upto 2001 but despite this, his services have not been regularised by the respondent authorities. Therefore, real grievance of the present petitioner is that there is inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not absorbing the petitioner as permanent employee and not giving regular pay scale which is available to the Class IV post of watchman as permanent employee. The grievance of the present petitioner is that similarly situated other persons working on the post of watchman are receiving regular salary though the petitioner has been working from the year 1974 upto 2001 till date, the petitioner has not been regularly absorbed by the respondent authorities, therefore, his request made by the petitioner to direct the respondents to absorb the present petitioner on permanent basis and also to pay regular salary to the petitioner in the post of Watchman.