SHANKERJI CHELJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3965 of 1999. The petitioners contended that their services are pensionable and their services cannot be terminated without following the procedure.

(2.) 14 persons, by filing a joint petition approached this Court by making a statement that they were working as Rojamdars (daily wagers) since 1970. In the petition, the period of service is not clearly set out so as to say that they have completed particular period as mentioned in the Resolution/Notification published by the Government of Gujarat through its Roads and Building Department being resolution No. WCE 1588/5/I-G.2 dated October 17, 1988. The period of service or the days for which they worked in a particular year is not mentioned anywhere in the petition. So far as the nature of the work is concerned, they have come out with a case that they were engaged in the cleaning of canals by taking out mud which used to accumulate occasionally in the canal. They also used to clean the opening and closing the water outlets to the smaller canals, repair of the canals, trimming of the three branches, etc. Relying on the aforesaid notification, the petitioners have averred that those who have completed the period of service between 5 and 10 years are entitled to get monthly fixed salary and those who have completed more than the aforesaid period are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits like pension, gratuity, etc. The petitioners have stated that all the petitioners were appointed before October 1, 1988 and hence their services cannot be terminated but are required to be regularised in terms of the aforesaid resolution. They prayed for pension. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the decision of the learned single Judge delivered in Spl. C. A. No. 2836/1998 on August 27, 1998 wherein according to the petitioners, the learned single Judge while deciding the petition has held that the services as a daily wager is pensionable. The petitioners have also pointed out that the learned single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in L.P.A. No. 1495 of 1997 on August 6, 1998. The petition is sworn by petitioner No. 3 alone.

(3.) When a grievance is raised by a citizen by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he is required to file a petition giving all necessary details and all the relevant facts in separate paragraphs and he has to narrate the facts on oath prescribed in the rules framed by the High Court. Different petitioners have started working in different years and whether they have put in more than 5 years but less than 10 years of service as on October 1, 1988 or more than 10 years of service in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) can be averred by each petitioner by placing necessary material before the Court. In the instant case, a vague statement is made that the petitioners were working as daily wagers since 1970. In the petition, it is not even pointed out as to since which date a particular petitioner rendered his services as a daily wager. It is also not stated as to for how many days services were rendered. It is also not stated whether petitioners worked continuously for more than 10 years and in each such year for 240 days or more. Thus a vague petition is filed which has rightly been not entertained by the learned single Judge.