PATEL VISHNUBHAI AMBALAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order directing the respondent-authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his appointment in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi and further the respondent-authorities may also be directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed on 02.04.1996 as daily wager with respondent-Mansa Nagarpalika. The petitioner worked as Octroi Clerk from 02.04.1996 to May-2001. The petitioner along with other similarly situated persons have filed Special Civil Application No.26297 of 2006, wherein the order came to be passed on 19.12.2006 for making detailed representation to respondent-authority and same shall be decided by the respondent- authority. On 22.12.2006, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons have made detailed representation to the respondent- authorities. No reply or action was taken on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Misc. Civil Application No.82 of 2008 and the order came to be passed on Misc. Civil Application No.82 of 2008 on 27.06.2008. The petitioner was given appointment on fixed pay scale in Class-IV Mukadam post which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. The petitioner along with other similarly situated persons have filed Special Civil Application No.10746 of 2009 and the same came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2010. On 08.10.2010, the Court passed an order to pay salary on regular basis to other similarly situated employees if they have worked for a continuous period of five years on fixed pay scale. The Court passed an order on 04.07.2011 in Special Civil Application No.589 of 2011 to pay regular salary to other similarly situated employee. In spite of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent-authorities are not regularizing the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.