Madarsinh J. Jadeja - (Madarsinh ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2

1. The petitioners have preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :

"A. Admit this petition;

B. issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners for giving them appointment as Work­charge like other similarly situated persons in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;

the present petition, be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representation made by the petitioners for giving them appointment subject to final outcome of this petition;

D. pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts, if put in a nutshell, are as under :

2.1 The petitioners were initially appointed as a work­charge Carpenter since 1986­87. Their services were brought to end by the respondent­ authorities. Therefore, they approached the Labour Court, Jamnagar, preferring a References bearing Nos.332/1993, 77/1994 and 78/1994. During the pendency of the said References, they were appointed on the post of Muster Clerk. Their services were once again terminated on July 05, 2000. All the References, which were pending before the Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/4850/2014 ORDER Labour Court came to be decided and partly allowed and reinstatement was made on June 01, 2001. The petitioners and others were also given continuity of service and retiral benefits. It is the case of the petitioners that against the order of termination dated July 05, 2000, they had preferred Special Civil Application No.3827 of 2002 before this Court, challenging such termination. The respondent­ authority had also preferred Special Civil Application No.728 of 2002, challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court. One of the employees Shri Sureshkumar Babulal Mehta preferred Special Civil Application No.9326 of 2001 for implementation of the judgment of the Labour Court. Eventually, by an order August 12, 2011, all these petitions were disposed of. Special Civil Application No.728 of 2002, however, came to be disposed of on the ground that there is no question of granting continuity of service. Special Civil Application No.3827 of 2002 was dismissed for want of prosecution. In the year 2010 and 2011, Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/4850/2014 ORDER no fresh appointment was made. A representation was made by the petitioners to the respondents in November, 2012, however, the respondents did not pay any heed. Special Civil Application No.6930 of 2013 was preferred before this Court, which ultimately came to be admitted by this Court and directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation to the authority and the authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.

2.2 On December 16, 2013, such representation has been made by the petitioners. No reply is given to such representation. It is the say of the petitioners that the District Jamnagar has now been administratively separated in two different districts, namely, (i) Jamnagar District and (ii) Devbhoomi Dwarka District. There is ample scope of recruitment. The petitioners though had made a representation prior to about 1½ year, no heed is paid by the respondents.

Page 4 of 6

C/SCA/4850/2014 ORDER

3. At an admission stage, Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the grievance of the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioners in the month of December, 2013.

4. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioners on December 16, 2013, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order; and such representation be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of its consideration. The petitioners, if, are aggrieved by such decision, they shall take recourse of law as is permissible under the law. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the matter or express any opinion on merits. The respondents shall consider on due application of mind all the averments set out in the Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/4850/2014 ORDER representation to be made by the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 6 of 6