JAYASWAL PRAFULKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed by the petitioners working as drivers with respondent No. 1 on temporary and contractual basis with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate direction to the respondents to regularise their service.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are serving with respondent No. 1-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Ahmedabad, since last five to seven years on a fixed pay-scale and,considering the nature of work available with the respondent-Commission and pursuant the recommendations contained in the report and Government Resolution dated 16th February 2006 to remove anomalies in the pay-scale and to regularize the service, their cases for regularization deserve consideration by the respondents in view of the service rendered by them since number of years.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners heavily relies on the report of Dr. P. K. Das Committee Government Resolution dated 16th February 2006 of the Department of Finance, State of Gujarat, and submits that the petitioners, though appointed purely on temporary basis on fixed pay-scale, are required to be regularized in service and appropriate directions may be given to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners. He further submits that the nature of duties reveals that the work is of permanent nature and the petitioners are qualified to continue on the post in question. He further submits that, since service of the bailiffs of the State Consumer Forum came to be regularized by the Competent Authority, the petitioners also deserve similar treatment.