PRAVINBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. KADI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction from this Court to the respondent Municipality to regularise the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with 12% interest. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the respondent Municipality to pay the arrears of wages etc. to the petitioner considering him as regular employee of the respondent Municipality from the initial date of appointment. By way of an amendment, the petitioner has also prayed for the declaration from this Court to the effect that the impugned action on the part of the respondent Municipality of verbal termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1992 was illegal and invalid and inoperative in law and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the said action of the respondent Municipality and directing it to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was given an appointment order on 26.09.1990 / 08.10.1990 issued by the Deputy Director of Training appointing the petitioner as Apprentice in Kadi Municipality. On completion of one year period, the petitioner has given an application to the President of respondent Municipality requesting to continue him in service looking to his satisfactory work. The petitioner was given appointment order by the respondent dated 22.11.1991 for a period of one month in the tax department as Tax Clerk as daily rated employee. The respondent Municipality has adopted a practice of giving a day or two artificial break in the service of the petitioner though he was absorbed after his completion of successful apprenticeship period. The petitioner has completed more than 240 days of service and hence, the petitioner was entitled to be regularised. It is further alleged that when the petitioner has requested the respondent to continue him in service, the respondent has stated that he would not be continued any further as one Mr. Tarunkumar Jasubhai was to be accommodated at the place of the petitioner though Mr. Tarunkumar was junior to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has further submitted that in number of other cases, the petitions filed by the petitioners have been entertained by this Court and by way of an example, the petitioner has quoted the instance of the petitioner in S.C.A. No. 8376 of 1990 and that petition has been admitted by this Court. It was submitted that after filing of the present petition, the respondents have verbally terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1992. The said termination was in violation of first-cum-last go and many juniors to the petitioner were continued in the service of the respondent. No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner before terminating the services of the petitioner. Despite the fact that the respondent Municipality was under obligation to give one month's notice, the said notice was not given to the petitioner. It has, therefore, been urged before the Court that the respondent Municipality be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner and to quash the verbal order of termination and to grant all consequential benefits with 12% interest.