BALUBHAI G MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this petition, has sought the mandatory relief from this Court directing the respondent authorities to treat the impugned action on the part of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner and in terminating the services of the petitioner by adopting the modus operandi of 29 days appointment, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and non-est in the eye of law and has further sought directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous services of the respondents right from the initial entry of the petitioner in the service of the respondents. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration from this Court to the effect that the orders creating artificial break in the service of the petitioner, after his initial appointment, as illegal, non-est and of no effect whatsoever and to treat the services of the petitioner as continuous for all purposes. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to confer upon the petitioner all benefit of regular service from his initial entry in the service of the respondents, such as fixation of pay, arrears of salary, status, seniority etc., treating the petitioner in the continuous service of the respondents. By way of an interim relief, the petitioner has prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and permitting him to discharge his duties and to pay him his regular salary accordingly in the regular pay-scale. The petition was admitted by this Court on 26-2-1991 and while granting ad-interim relief, this Court has passed an order to maintain status-quo in respect of the work/service of the petitioner. While confirming the ad-interim relief, this Court has passed an order on 8-7-1992 directing the respondents that the services of the petitioner were not to be terminated except in accordance with law, subject ofcourse to the fact that the petitioner was actually working with respondent No.2. Under this interim relief, the petitioner has been working with the respondents during the pendency of this petition before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner has urged in the petition that he has been rendering services to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent-authorities since 1986 regularly and continuously without any breaks, except the artificial breaks created by the respondent authorities. It is further stated in the petition that there is nothing against the petitioner and his work has been appreciated by the respondent authorities. The petitioner further stated that ever since his initial appointment, he was being served with the appointment order of 29 days, though the petitioner has been continuously working. The petitioner has further alleged in the petition that the artificial breaks were given to the petitioner only with a view to disentitle the petitioner from claiming any right for the services rendered by him or any claim for the regularisation. The petitioner has filed a detailed list showing particulars of all appointment orders and copies of certain appointment orders, along with the petition.

(3.) The petitioner, in support of his contention raised in the petition, has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam M. Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1985 G.L.H. (UJ) 51, which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 326 of 1985. The petitioner has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh and another Vs. The Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and Others, reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 584. Based on these judgments, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been working on a clear vacancy for the years to come with the respondent authorities and that the act on the part of the respondent-authorities in not regularising his services and in terminating his services by adopting the modus-operandi of 29 days' appointment is absolutely illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further raised the contention that if his services were terminated and/or the same were not regularised by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner would be put in a miserable condition and that he would not be in a position to get any employment in any other Government organisation because of certain handicaps such as age-bar etc. It is further submitted that, after taking services of the petitioner for all these years, the respondent-authorities could not be permitted to play with the future of the petitioner by adopting the artificial break of 29 days' appointment. The petitioner has further raised the contention that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the termination of his services could not be effected without payment of retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the termination of the services of the petitioner without payment of retrenchment compensation was bad, illegal, and violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.