DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. MONIKA NATHABHAI RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar for the appellant, learned senior advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi assisted by learned advocate Vyom Shah for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent State and its authorities.

(2.) What is called in question by the District Development Officer in this Letters Patent Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is judgment and order dtd. 18/10/2022 of learned Single Judge, whereby the respondents-original petitioners were held entitled to the benefits of past service treating such services as continuous.

(3.) Two petitioners prayed in their Special Civil Application to direct the respondents to consider their services rendered on adhoc basis to be continuous for the purpose of reckoning pay and other service benefits. The facts were that the petitioners were appointed as Family Health Workers in the year 2005. At that time they were given orders of appointment for 11 months. Order dated 04 02.2005 which figures on record of the petition indicated that the appointment was on adhoc basis as mentioned in the order, however, what is to be noticed is that at that time itself, the petitioners were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.3050.004590 admissible to the post of Family Health Workers.