PRAKSHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI RATNOTAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:-

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the interim order granted by this Court directing the respondent to maintain status quo, the petitioner is not terminated from service and he is working continously in the respondent no.2-Hospital. He has submitted that the petitioner has been working as a Case Writer since 2/2/2009, however, no appointment order was issued to him. He has submitted that the respondent no.2 has issued a certificate stating that the petitioner has worked from 2/2/2009 to 27/2/2009. He has submitted that the petitioner has been working since 7 years in the respondent-Hospital, however, the respondents have since initiated process for outsourcing the service of the present petitioner and he has filed the writ petition on the apprehension that his service will be terminated. It is submitted by him that the petitioner is only paid Rs.5,000.00 per months as fixed salary, which is less than minimum wages given to the Class-III employees.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta has submitted that in the year 2012, the respondent, vide order dtd. 30/7/2011 outsourced the functions of the Hospital Waste Management to one M/s. M.J.Solanki for the period from 1/7/2011 to 30/6/2012 and accordingly, pursuant to such outsourcing, the post of Case Writer, which the petitioner was holding, was also outsourced. It is submitted that the petitioner worked under the said contractor and after completion of the tenure of the said contractor M/s.M.J.Solanki, the petitioner was temporary employed by the respondent authority under the Rogi Kalyan Scheme. While placing reliance on the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner worked under the temporary employed with the respondent-Hospital until 2015 when again the work was outsourced to a contractor under the order of the State Government. It is submitted that all throughout the service of the petitioner has remained as temporary when his service was outsourced through different contractors. Lastly, vide appointment order dtd. 15/1/2016, the petitioner was appointed for a period of 11 months to undertake the functions of Case Writer. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be entertained.