SCA/4329/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4329 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NATUBHAI DHANABHAI SOLANKI - Petitioner(s) Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DP JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RITURAJ M MEENA for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the office order No.80 of 2008 dated 29.2.2008 by SCA/4329/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT virtue of which the petitioner is ordered to be relieved from the service with effect from 29.2.2008. 2. It is case of the petitioner that the respondent has framed policy by virtue of office order dated 1.12.2007/1.1.2008 and as per the said office order, the decision of not regularizing the daily wages employee is to be made applicable to the daily wages employees engaged after 1994, which, as per the petitioner's submission and interpretation, would mean that the daily wages employees engaged before 1994 are to be and can be regularized and that therefore, the impugned action of the respondent is contrary to the said policy. It is the further case of the petitioner that he joined with the respondent board with effect from 1986 and that therefore, he would be benefited by the aforesaid policy decision or in other words, he would get protection as per the said policy. On the basis of such assertion and allegation, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. The respondent has filed reply affidavit and disputed the contention and claim of the petitioner. SCA/4329/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1987 and the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute against the said termination. By way of Reference (LCA) No.323 of 1988, wherein an award dated 3.1.1996 came to be passed, the respondent was directed to be reinstated. It is also the case of the respondent Board that after the said award, the petitioner came to be reinstated by virtue of order dated 10.7.1996 by office order No.235 of 1996 and by executing an undertaking dated 11.7.1996, the respondent also accepted the said appointment. Thus, the said order dated 10.7.1996 has become final. 4. It is the case of the respondent that by the said order, the respondent was appointed as a fresh employee and that therefore, even otherwise, he would not be covered within the purview of the policy decision dated 1.12.2007 and 1.1.2008 on which the petitioner has placed reliance in this petition. 5. In this view of the matter, it becomes clear that this petition involves disputed question of fact and it would not be possible to examine the said SCA/4329/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT aspects in proceedings of this writ petition. Hence, the petition is not entertained on the ground that the petitioner has alternative remedy and also because the petitioner involves disputed question of fact. In that view of the petition, the petition is not entertained at this stage. 6. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the dispute or assertions of the petitioner and has not expressed any opinion on merits. Notice is discharged. Ad interim relief, if granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith. (K.M.THAKER, J.) ynvyas