AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. MEGHAJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi for the respondents waives service.

(2.) These Appeals From Orders are filed against an order of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit Nos. 1280 of 1996, 4509 of 1996, 1262 of 1996 and 1397 of 1996. In each of the above suits, on notice of motion, below Exhs. 5 and 6, learned City Civil Judge passed order on 20th November, 2000, allowing the Notice of Motion in each of the above said suits confirming the relief of status quo granted at ad interim stage till final hearing of the suit. Since all the four orders which are impugned are similar and the same and each of the above said order in all 4, these 4 Appeals From Orders are preferred, all these Appeal From Orders were heard together and are being disposed of with this common judgment and order.

(3.) The short fact of the case is that in all about 32 plaintiffs filed above said four civil suits in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for declaration and permanent injunction. Mainly it was contended that the plaintiffs are daily-rated employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-respondent herein and defendant in all the above four suits. It is contended by the plaintiffs that they are daily-rated employees right from 1989. Some of them were serving as skilled workers and some of them as unskilled workers. The appointments orders are placed on record along with the plaints. It is the say of the plaintiffs that they are officiating on vacant and permanent posts and after 31st March, 1996, the defendant intends to dismiss them from the service to employ some junior persons in their place. This action of the defendant is illegal. It is also contended that as per the scheme of the defendant, they are eligible to be regularised and to be made permanent on clear vacancy because they have completed 5 years of service and 900 days. It is stated that the defendant since intends to employ juniors to the plaintiffs in their place, the defendant threatened them to expel from the job and for that the defendant gave the plaintiffs an artificial and long breaks. The work of the plaintiffs and the services are satisfactory and no charge-sheet or notice till the filing of the suits for the misbehaviour or otherwise has been given to the plaintiffs. By amending the plaints, it is also contended that in different departments of the defendant-Corporation, juniors to the present plaintiffs are employed who are presently working in the respective departments. This amendment contains list of junior persons working in the various departments of the Corporation. Ultimately, long reliefs i.e., the following declaration are sought by the plaintiffs in the above said suits. (i) That they are working on clear substantive posts and are entitled to have the benefits of permanent employees. (ii) As per the policy of the Corporation, they have completed 5 years and 900 days, and therefore, they are entitled to be regularised, and in fact, they are since long permanent. (iii) The action of the defendant-Corporation not making them permanent is discriminatory, illegal, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Arts. 14, 16, 21, 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Declaration is sought that the action of the defendant to employ junior persons is in colourable exercise and is required to be set aside. (v) Permanent injunction is sought that defendant be restrained from discharging or dismissing the plaintiffs in any manner, whatsoever, from the employment and the defendant be restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs in discharging their duties. (vi) That appointment order of the defendant appointing them upto 13-3-1996 is illegal and void.