DAHYABHAI PURABHAI VANKAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Siddhiben Talati, learned AGPfor the respondents. The facts of the present petition, in short are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent as daily rated labourer on or about 21.9.1981 and the petitioner had worked as such from 21.9.1981 to 24.9.1982 and, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of watchman. He worked from 25.9.1982 to 18.3.1983 as such and, thereafter, due to closure of certain work, he was reverted as labourer and from 19.3.1983 to 3.2.1984, the petitioner had worked as daily rated labourer and thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted as watchman from 4.2.1984 and continued to remain as such upto 29.8.1984. Service of the petitioner was terminated on 29.8.1984 which was challenged by the petitioner before the labourer court through union and the labour court decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service from12.4.1985 with continuity of service and from12.4.1985, he worked as watchman under the respondents. According to the respondents, thereafter, services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of alleged theft in godown under the Sub. Dn. No. IV at GOhai COlony at night between 24 and 25th September, 1985. According to the petitioner, till August, 1985, he was working in the cement godown and thereafter the petitioner was orally transferred to steel godown under the Sub Division No. IV. The petitioner was assigned only night duty. Thereafter, the petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of the said complaint and on the basis of the said charge of theft, the petitioner's service was terminated illegally. In this petition, the petitioner has moved draft amendment which was allowed on 21.8.19912 and accordingly, the amendment was carried out and paragraph 7A, 7B and 7C has been added to the petition. The main challenge in this petition is to quash and set aside the order of termination and to restrain the respondents permanently from terminating his services and to regularize his service as he completed five years' service and by amendment, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to pay full back wages with continuity of service and to extend to the petitioner benefits of the Government Resolutions dated 17th October, 1988 and 23rd October, 1988.

(2.) In this petition, initially, while issuing notice on 18.2.1987, this court has ordered status quo qua the petitioner and thereafter the petition was admitted and ad interim relief was granted directing the respondents to suspend the order of termination and to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as watchman and to pay him salary regularly from month to month and notice as to interim relief was issued for finalizing the interim relief which was made returnable on 18.4.1988 and thereafter this court, under its order dated 10.10.1988, vacated the ad interim order which was earlier made by this Court. Against the said order vacating ad interim order, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 391 of 1988 before the Division Bench of this court and the said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties and the order dated 10.10.1988 vacating the ad interim order was quashed and the earlier order granting ad interim relief was confirmed. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the respondents on 25.3.1988 and the petitioner is continuing in service as per the order dated 15.3.1988.

(3.) In this petition, affidavit in reply has been filed by the executive engineer, Project Construction Dn.I Himatnagar on 13th March, 1992 against which, the petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder on 3.4.1992.