BACHUBHAI PATABHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as daily wager employees and as per the petitioners, some of them were appointed from 1988 to 1991 as per the list Annexure A, but the very list shows that from Sr. No.15 onwards, they were appointed in the year 1999. It is an admitted position that none of the petitioners is appointed after undergoing regular selection process, nor there is a sanctioned set-up available of the Municipality for the post over which the petitioners came to be appointed. The Resolution dated 9.8.2002 vide No.4 came to be passed by the Medical Board of Mahva Nagarpalika, whereby the appointment of the petitioners was extended for a period of three months. The District Collector in exercise of the power under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) upon the application of the Chief Officer of the Municipality Respondent No.3 heein suspended the operation of the aforesaid Resolution dated 9.8.2002 of the Medical Board of the Municipality. He also suspended the other Resolution of the Municipality of Drainage Committee which is not the subject matter of the present petition.

(2.) As such in view of the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the District Collector it was required for the Municipality to implement the decision of the District Collector, however, it has been stated by Mr.Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the hearing that such order of the Collector was not implemented by the Municipality and all petitioners continued as daily-rated employees even thereafter. It appears that thereafter the District Collector passed final order dated 22.7.2003 under Section 258 of the Act, whereby he continued earlier interim order passed by him for suspending the Resolution dated 9.8.2002 of the Municipality and also directed to the Municipality to forward the proposal for additional sanction since the posts were concerning to the hospital which is under the control of the Municipality. It is under these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present petition for challenging the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the District Collector to the extent of continuing the suspension of the resolution No.4 passed by the Medical Board of the Municipality dated 9.8.2002, the petitioners also have prayed for directing the Municipality to make the payment of salary of 10 months for which, as per the petitioners' services are rendered.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Desai, learned AGP for the State abd Mrs.Pahwa for Chief Officer of the Municipality. It may be recorded that in the present petition of 11.8.2003, while issuing notice, the interim order was passed directing for maintenance of status-quo. Thereafter, as the services of the petitioners were already terminated the matter once again came to be considered by this Court on 12.9.2003 and an interim order was passed of a mandatory in nature to the effect that the Municipality was directed to provide the same work to the petitioners, which were being given before the order of termination and as per the petitioners, thereafter the petitioners are taken back in service by the Municipality. It may also be recorded that it was also observed by this Court that the Municipality may expedite by sending appropriate proposal to the Government for sanctioning the set-up and recruitment of the staff. Thereafter the matter is admitted on 1.12.2005 and the ad-interim relief was continued. Therefore, it appears that on the date of the petition, the services of the petitioners were already terminated, however, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners are in service, pending the petition.