DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. JANUBEN MALABHAI DODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. RV Acharya for the appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. GM Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the respondent Nos.1 to 15 and learned AGP Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent No.16.

(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent questions common judgment and order dtd. 18/10/2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.3342 of 2018 and allied matters. The challenge, which is essential in this Letters Patent Appeal, is made against the judgment and order of Special Civil Application No.3342 of 2018. Learned Single Judge in impugned judgment held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of past service treating their service as continuous service. The Special Civil Application was preferred seeking direction to the respondent authority to consider their service, rendered on ad hoc basis, to be continuous for the purpose of reckoning it with other service benefits.

(3.) An advertisement came to be issued in the month of July 1998 for the recruitment of the Female Health Worker and having applied, the petitioners had undergone selection process. In the year 2004, more particularly, on 29/1/2004, ultimately, appointment order was given to the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis for 11 months on the pay-scale of Rs.3050.00Rs.4590..00 The GPSC issued advertisement for the same post in the year 2010 for the recruitment of Family Health Worker with specific State wise vacancies. The petitioners were made aware that they were ad hoc appointees and they may have to undergo selection/recruitment process. After clearing it, the petitioners were given appointment in the month of September, 2010 as Family Health Workers on the same pay-scale.