MAHENDRASINH SAMATSINH VAGHELA Vs. DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was listed yesterday. For 3 calls, no one appeared for the petitioner. Today also, for 2 calls, no one appears for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.D.G Chauhan for the respondents states that consistently on all occasions when the matter was listed, no one appeared for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, petition is examined by this Court on merits.

(2.) The petitioner who is working with the respondent-University as Daily Wager, was aggrieved by the fact that some of the Daily Wagers were given benefit of fixed pay and holidays by order dated 15.10.1998, whereas he is meted out with the discriminatory treatment. The second grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being regularized in the service and therefore, he has approached this court with following prayers:

(3.) So far as the first grievance is concerned, reliance is place at Annexure-A which is an order in favour of several employees giving them benefit of fixed pay of Rs.3,000/- per month and other benefit. However, attention of this Court is drawn by learned advocate Mr.Chauhan to the fact and subsequently this order came to be cancelled by order dated 31st July, 1999 and cancellation was effected from 15.10.1998 and therefore, benefit granted to the employees by order dated 15.10.1998 does not exist any more.