AMBALAL GABHAJI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who joined his services as a Gardener under the respondent, has, in substance, claimed all the benefits accruing to him under the Resolution dated 17. 10. 1988 of the Government and, as stated at the bar, he is already granted such benefit. The only dispute which survives is as regards the date from which effect was required to be given for grant of the benefit. The difference has arisen because the petitioner has claimed to have joined the services since 21. 10. 1980, whereas, according to the affidavit-in-reply of the horticulture officer, the petitioner was not completing 240 days of service in the year 1980-81 and the year 1986-87. The exact number of days of attendance are enumerated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply and they clearly appear to be incorrect; because in the year 1980-81, number of days attended are counted from 21st October 1980, and by the end of the financial year, i. e. 31st March 1981, the number of working days could not exceed 161 days, making it impossible that the petitioner could have worked for 192 days. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had actually joined the service under the respondent in the year 1978 appears to be plausible. Apart from that, number of days actually worked as a daily wager by the petitioner are mentioned by the respondent to be 340 days to 361 days in several years, which again is improbable, since the establishment of the respondent or the petitioner could not have worked round the year, without any weekly or public holidays. On the other hand, it is deposed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner would get all the benefits under said Resolution dated 17. 10. 1988, as and when he would complete ten years as a daily wager.

(2.) SINCE the factual controversy could not be conclusively resolved on the basis of the affidavits of the parties, specific order was made by this Court (Coram:s. R. Brahmbhatt, J.) on 11. 5. 2009 in order to elicit more information and specific instruction in that regard. However, learned AGP has drawn a blank and not divulged any information or instruction as regards availability of any material or information about the exact number of days worked by the petitioner.

(3.) SINCE the controversy is limited by the claim of the petitioner that he should be granted all the benefits due under aforesaid Resolution with effect from 21. 10. 1990 and, in absence of correct and accurate information supposed to be in possession of the respondent, there are reasons to believe that the petitioner has legitimate grievance about application of the aforesaid Resolution. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to be treated to have completed ten years of service on 21st October 1990 and all the consequential benefits shall be calculated on that basis, in accordance with aforesaid Resolution and the Rules applicable in the facts of the case. The difference of arrears, if any, shall be calculated by the respondent concerned and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.