JADAV NIKESHKUMAR MAFATLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, numbering about 250, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with prayers for regularization and/or reinstatement in service. They are in the grey area of government employment insofar as, though regularly employed since 2 to 28 years for manual work of the lowest grade as sweeper, water-bearer, safai kamdar, cook, driver, gardner, watchman, peon, or even typist at the higher end, they are appointed and treated as ad-hoc or temporary part-time employees having no status and no protection of any service rules. They have been employed in various offices under the State Government with fixed hours of work ranging from 2 to 6 hours, at fixed wages ranging from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 1350/-. While they were clamouring for regularization in service, the government has decided to dispense with their services; which has thrown up several important issues for decision by this Court. While some of the petitioners were only apprehending termination, some were protected by orders of interim relief and many are already discharged from service.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners, generally, that, in absence of any recruitment rules or service rules for the appointees like the petitioners, they have been appointed and employed on part-time and ad-hoc basis on exploitative conditions of service without the usual benefits of minimum wages, allowances, leave of absence, weekly holidays, or any terminal benefits; and that they continued to work under such conditions in the hope of achieving the status of regular employees in terms of the policy and resolutions of the government itself. Many similarly situated part-time ad-hoc employees were regularized in their service pursuant to such government resolutions or by virtue of orders of this Court, but in the process of waiting, most of the petitioners have crossed upper age-limits for any other employment under the government. On the other hand, the government suspended its policy of regularization of such employees, then revoked it and now it was decided to terminate their services without following any procedure and without so much as a notice or written order.

(3.) As against the above grievances, the case of the respondents, as broadly articulated in the few counter-affidavits, is that the Government in its Finance Department had issued the circular dated 26.12.1980 to provide for absorption of part-time employees who had completed three years of service in the respective department; but it was discretionary, subject to the employee fulfilling the prescribed requirements for appointment in class-IV service and only as and when vacancies were available. By the subsequent circular dated 21.8.1995, the aforesaid circular dated 26.12.1980 was kept in abeyance. It was noticed by the State Government that such part-timers continued in service for a number of years, then moved the Courts for regularization of service and were required to be absorbed by virtue of the court's orders even though they did not qualify as per the recruitment rules. The subordinate offices were used to appointing a large number of part-timers leading to back-door entry in service and the government was saddled with the responsibility of pay and allowances and retiral benefits of such employees. Therefore, the government issued circulars dated 7.1.2006 to cancel the aforesaid circulars dated 26.12.1980 and 21.8.1995; and, with a view to obtain better service with lesser financial burden, the government decided to bring the help of outsource agency by virtue of G.R. Dated 10.2.2006. That G.R. withdrew the power of the concerned departments to appoint part-timers as also the power of making payment from contingency funds to such part-timers.