DHIRAJLAL TULSIDAS PARMAR Vs. BHANVAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.12031 of 2009, the original respondent - original workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:

(3.) Number of submissions have been made by learned advocates for the respective parties with regard to the continuity of service. It is the case on behalf of the appellant - workman that once the order of termination is held to be bad in law and illegal and reinstatement is ordered, the continuity would be automatic. In support of the above, Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate for the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak and ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 as well as in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors reported in 2002 (92) FLR 838 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vasantika R Dalia vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10005 of 1996.