1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2015
  6. /
  7. January

Vikashchandra Simonbhai Parmar & ... vs State Of Gujarat Through ...

High Court Of Gujarat|08 April, 2015
1. Heard Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Prakash Jani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. The Court is informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the term of the Commission has been further extended by a period of one year. A Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/1941/2013 ORDER perusal of the Government Resolution dated 18.03.1993, whereby the Commission has been constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 477, shows that the Commission is a permanent body and the work performed by it is permanent in nature. It, therefore, follows that the Commission would require staff to implement its work.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were working under respondent No.2­Commission for a number of years on contractual basis but they were not being given regular employment in spite of sanctioned posts being available. Another grievance of the petitioners is regarding the fixation of the minimum pay­scale, as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Further, by way of ad­interim relief, the petitioners had prayed that their services may not be terminated.
4. When notice was issued on 27.02.2013, this Court made it clear that there is no stay against continuation of employment of the petitioners. Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/1941/2013 ORDER However, during the pendency of the petition, the services of the petitioners (five in number) have been terminated, inasmuch as their contracts have not been renewed. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that though, by an order dated 04.03.2013, the petitioners were assigned some work, however, they were not permitted to perform the work with effect from 07.03.2013, on which date, the petitioners served the notice of the petition upon respondent No.2. Meaning thereby, that the services of the petitioners have been terminated by not renewing their contracts during the pendency of the petition. It is the allegation of the petitioners that this has been done to punish them for approaching this Court. Meanwhile, other persons on contractual basis have been appointed in the Commission in place of the petitioners.
5. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the nature of appointment of the petitioners is contractual, therefore, they may have no right to continue after the period of the contract is over.
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/1941/2013 ORDER
6. On the other hand, Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts which are still continuing. That it is a settled position of law that ad­hoc/contractual employees cannot be replaced by other ad­hoc/contractual employees but their services ought to be continued, till such time as regularly selected candidates are available. In support of this proposition, learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2014(2) GLH 501, wherein this Court has held that the action of terminating the services of ad­hoc employees by engaging fresh ad­hoc persons for a fixed period of time is against the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118.
7. In view of the above, it would be necessary for this Court to examine the sanctioned set up of respondent No.2­Commission including the number of Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/1941/2013 ORDER sanctioned posts, the employees who are working in the Commission for respondent No.2, the capacity in which they are working and the emoluments being paid to them. It may also be indicated whether all the posts are sanctioned, whether any are vacant or all have been filled up. This information be placed before the Court on, or before, the next date of hearing.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and considering the nature of the issues involved in the petition, the following order is passed:
Issue Rule, returnable on 28.04.2015. Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.