PATEL DILIPKUMAR BHIKHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following prayers:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that despite the petitioners have been appointed in the year 2004-2005-2006 in fix salary on contract basis for period of five years, they have been granted regular pay scale on completion of five years services in the cadre Panchayat Sahayak/Panchayat Mantri, though other junior incumbents who have been appointed in fix salary that too five years contract basis in the year 2007-2008, the concerned respondent authorities have granted benefit of considering the services in fix salary for the period of five years and as part of regular services on the basis of resolution dated 17.01.2018. It is also submitted that the the other junior Panchayat Shayak who have been appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners in the same manner in which the petitioners came to be appointed and on the same posts of panchayat sahayak, though junior panchayat sahayaks have been appointed in the year 2007 and 2008 in fix salary for a period of five years, they have been granted the benefit of GR. dated 18/01/2017 and services of such junior panchayat sahayak/panchayat mantri have been order to be counted/considered as regular services for all the purposes, however the petitioners are subjected to great injustice as services rendered by the petitioners for the period of five years is not treated as regular services on the basis of resolution dated 18/01/2017, however other panchayat sahayak who have been appointed in 2007 and 2008, services on contract basis that too for a period of five years of such junior panchayat sahayak have been ordered to be treated as a regular services as they have been granted the benefits dated 18/01/2017 and the petitioners are not granted the same. It is submitted that some junior panchayat sahayak have already extended the benefit of higher pay scales treating that entire services as regular services and even with the seniority position they would be assigned the seniority above benefit and they have already been granted the, as per the GR dated 18/01/2017, however petitioners are subjected to great injustice and therefore even the concerned recognized association representing in its members who have been serving as panchayat sahayak/panchayat mantri have made representation requesting the authority not to discriminate two set of similarly situated panchayat sahayak/talati cum mantri. It is submitted that once the resolution dated 18/01/2017 has been published same may be made implicating in uniform manner to all the concerned employee who have been appointed in fix salary for a period of five years on the basis of GR dated 16/02/2006 and all such contract employees including the petitioner ought to have extended the benefit of GR dated 18/01/2017. The respondents have treated the contract services of junior employees as a regular services for all the purposes and though petitioners are senior they have not been granted the benefits of GR dated 18/01/2017 and therefore the action of the respondent authority of not extending the benefit of GR of 18/01/2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same is Violative of article 14 and 16 of constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State submitted that undoubtedly an anomalous situation has arisen on account of variation in the recruitment process. Earlier, the appointments were being made by the respective department however, later on Government came out with a Government Resolution by the Finance Department laying down the common norms for recruitment across all the Departments. Hence, some of the employees under each of the Department were recruited under the previous system of recruitment, whereas subsequent employees were recruited as provided by the Government Resolution of the Finance Department. It is submitted that anomalous situation may be taken care of if the petitioners raise their grievance not only to its parent department, but also before the Finance Department, which is not a party in the present petition.