Rameshbhai Chaturbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

[1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to holding and declaring that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified not to regularized the service of the present petitioner and direct the regularized the service of the present petitioner from the date of regularized the service the juniors and grant all the relevant monetary benefits to the petitioner.

(B) THIS HONOURABLE COURT may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant all benefits as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat v/s. PWD Employees union (Reported in 2012 (2) GLH 692.”

[2] Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has succeeded before the Labour Court as the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service however, now instead of granting the petitioner regularization in service, considering the longevity of his service, the respondent authorities are issuing advertisement by which new persons by which person are to be appointed on the very post which is occupied by the petitioner. Another issue that the petitioner has raised is in connection with the parity in pay and submitted that the persons who are juniors to the petitioners and are working as Pump Operators with the respondent Nagarpalika are being paid more than what is being paid to the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is discharging his duty as Pump Operator is being paid Rs.8000/-which is below the minimum wages., at the same time, the other persons who are also employed as Pump Operators are receiving at least Rs.16,500/-.

[3] Learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v/s. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union And others, reported in 2015 (3) GLR 2197 and drawn attention of this Court to para-3 to claim parity of pay at least considering the nature of work done by the petitioner.

[4] As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has referred to relied upon the affidavit in reply of the Nagarpalika contending that by the policy of the State Government, the post of a Pump Operator has been permitted to be recruited through an outsourcing agency and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the post is being advertised, may not be accepted.

[4.1] Insofar as the case of the petitioner regarding regularization, it is the say of the respondent-Nagarpalika that the authority lies with the State Authority as the Nagarpalika can only make a proposal which may be considered by the State Government for sanctioning the post of Pump Operator and only thereafter, the appointment on regular pay scale can be given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that insofar as the case of the petitioner who claims to receive only Rs.8,000/-, learned advocate for the Nagarpalika candidly submits that considering the various decisions of the Apex Court, the petitioner will have to be paid at par with the other Pump Operators and therefore, does not have anything adverse to submit in regard to the pay scale particularly when the amount of Rs.8,000/- is well below the prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act..

[5] The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been working as Pump Operator with the respondent-Nagarpalika since 1984. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record today for Court’s perusal an award of the Labour Court in Reference (LCM) No.29 of 2014/Old No.70 of 1992, which came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner by an award dated 15.11.201, wherein the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with compensation in lieu of back wages and also with continuity in service. It appears that the aforesaid award was a subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.2241 of 2015 by the respondent-Nagarpalika which came to be disposed of by oral judgment dated 11.10.2018 and the award of the Labour Court was interfered only to the extent of grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of the back wages. However, the order of reinstatement with continuity, was maintained. The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in service since 1984 and has rendered 30 years of continuous service with the respondent- Nagarpalika.

[6] In view of the aforesaid and considering the observations made by the Apex Court in Umrala Gram Panchayat (Supra), the case of the petitioner deserves consideration to the extent that the respondent-Nagarpalika may make an appropriate proposal in accordance with law with the State Government within a period of three months so as to sanction the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Pump Operator, which may be considered by the State Government in accordance with law.

[7] Insofar as the issue of grant of salary at par with the other employees discharging the same work, the Court is of the view that the petitioner’s case deserves consideration and therefore, holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive pay at par with the other Pump Operators and therefore, the respondent-Nagarpalika is directed to undertake exercise to find out as to date from which the employees similarly situated as the petitioners are receiving salary as claimed by the petitioner and pay to the petitioner accordingly. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Nagarpalika within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

[8] With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.