USMANGANI ABDULREHMAN MANSURI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu- tion read with Arts. 14 and 16 thereof 155 employees whose names are listed at Annexure D to the petition and who are working on different posts as foremen mechanics helpers fitters etc. in the Central Workshop division and Water Tanker sub-division at Odhav Ahmedabad and who are in service of the first respondent-State in the Public Works Department have raised two grievances against the State of Gujarat and the Superintending Engineer who is the head of the department and who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The first grievance is that the respondents are not giving benefit of all public holidays declared during any calendar year to be enjoyed by the State Government employees to the petitioners and the second grievance is that they are also denied the benefit of second and fourth Saturdays which are already treated as paid holidays for other Government servants. According to the petitioners all employees of the State of Gujarat and also employees of P. W. D. and Roads and Buildings and Irrigation Department are governed by the Bombay Civil Service Rules and as such they are entitled to public holidays as declared by the State of Gujarat from time to time and they are also entitled to alternative holidays being second and fourth Saturdays. The petitioners case is that Rule 4 of the Administrative Rules by which the petitioners are governed insofar as it denies benefit of second and fourth Saturdays and public holidays to the parsons working in Workshop in violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitu- tion. According to the petitioners the aforesaid action of the respon- dent-authorities suffers from two types of discrimination internal discrimination in the sense discrimination inter se employees working in the same workshop and (2) discrimination amongst persons similarly situated like the petitioners who are working in Odhav Workshop under P. W. D. and other employees of the State Government working in different departments but doing same type of work and who enjoy the benefit of public holidays and second and fourth closed Saturdays. It is. therefore prayed that respondents be directed to extend to all the petitioners the benefit of public holidays and benefit of second and fourth closed Saturdays either without any condition or with condition of rotation as may be deemed proper by this Court and to declare that Administrative Rule 4 insofar as it denies benefit to the petitioners as unconstitutional and void. They have also prayed for consequential benefit of arrears of over-time wages with 12% interest. They have also prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any disciplinary action against the petitioners in respect of being absent on public holidays and second and fourth Saturdays enjoyed by the petitioners in April 1988.

(2.) This petition is opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit-in reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 N. K. Varsat Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Roads and Buildings Department has filed his affidavit-in-reply on 30-8-1988. He has filed further affidavit dated 20 one M. V. Vachelu. Under Secretary R and B Department Gandhinagar has also filed his affidavit-in-reply on 20-7-1989. The petitioners have filed their affidavit-in-rejoinder as well as supporting affidavit of Pithva Chunilal Keshavlal. Vice President Government Drivers and Technical Staff Union Ahmedabad and S. G. Makwana General Secretary. Govt. Photo Registry Employees Union Ahmedabad in support of the petition.

(3.) We will deal with the contents of these rival affidavits in the later part of this judgment. In short the contention of the respondents is that the petitioners form a class by themselves That they are governed by the provisions of the Factories Act under which they have to work upto 48 hours per week i. e. for six days with 8 Working hours per day and they can enjoy only one weekly holiday Respondents contend that the cases cited by the petitioners for comparison are not comparable and therefore. there is no question of any hostile discri- mination so far as the petitioners are concerned. Having given there Introductory facts. we may now proceed to deal with the twin grievances raised by the petitioners in the light of the respective Versions of the parties.