MAHENDRABHAI P PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, learned advocate, waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, with a prayer to regularize his services. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner has challenged the `oral' termination of his services, on 12.10.2010.

(3.) AN affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 - Taluka Development Officer, affirmed on 09.10.2010. A further affidavit has also been filed by the said respondent, affirmed on 08.03.2011. The stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply is that the petitioner was engaged on purely temporary, adhoc basis, as a daily wager without following due procedure of recruitment in the month of September, 1997, and that the Taluka Panchayat had no powers to make any regular recruitment. However, the petitioner was continued without prior permission from the District Development Commissioner and his wages were paid out of the Workcharge Contingency Fund by the Taluka Panchayat. It is denied that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Clerk and it is stated that there is no cadre of Assistant Clerk, either in the Taluka Panchayat or District Panchayat and the petitioner was doing miscellaneous work. It is averred in the said affidavit that the petitioner has not worked at all after January, 2007, and he has been paid an amount of Rs.2,12,033/- for the period commencing September, 1997 to January, 2007. It is also denied that the petitioner was getting regular pay-scale and is averred that as he was not entitled to regular pay-scale, having been appointed without following any legal procedure, and his wages were paid out of the Contingency Fund. It is stated that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.2,438/- towards wages in the month of January, 2007, and thereafter, he has not rendered any services, therefore, he has not been paid any wages. The same stand is reiterated in the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In addition thereto, it is averred in the further affidavit that the petitioner has not worked after January 2007 and has not produced any evidence on record which would show that he has worked upto 12.10.2010, as averred in the petition.