NARESHKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners,in all sixteen in number, have challenged in this petition the alleged action of the respondents in giving artificial break in their service and also in not offering them salaries equivalent and at par with the State employees who are performing same duties as the petitioners. The petitioners were given appointment from time to time as peon/ peon cum drivers for fixed term on daily wages. Though complete details of appointments of the petitioners were not given by the petitioners in this special civil application, from the orders which are produced by them it certainly comes out that they have been given appointment for 29 days on daily wages. In para 9 of this special civil application the petitioners' case is that some of them were appointed right from 1981, and some of the petitioners have worked with the respondent State for more than 5 to 7 years. All these are incomplete and vague statements.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners raised following contentions in this special civil application. First, as the petitioners are working on daily wages they have acquired right of regularisation in service. Next contention is made that the respondents have made hostile discrimina..R this plea has been given in para 5 of the special civil application. The petitioners gave out reference to the case of four or five persons whose appointments were said to be regularised. Further contention is raised that the petitioners are working for 8 hours, but they have been paid only dailywages and they claim for parity on the basis of the principles of equal pay for equal work. Last contention has been raised that posts are vacant and as such the respondents may be directed to regularise their services. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in the case of:

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents contended that the petitioners have no case whatsoever in their favour. The petitioners were given fixed term appointment on daily wages as and when work was available. They were not working continuously. Their appointments were made without following any procedure or rules. All appointments were temporary, adhoc and for fixed term and as such no right, much less right of regulation, has accrued to the petitioners. It has further been contended that appointment to class IV posts other than secretariat service is regulated under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and these appointments were de hors the said rules.