SCA/25061/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25061 of 2007 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25072 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== JAYASWAL PRAFULKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA & others Versus THE REGISTRAR & another ====================================== Appearance : MR H.S.MULIA for Petitioners Ms. Asmita Patel, AGP, for the respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 22/01/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1 These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed by the petitioners working as drivers with respondent No.1 on SCA/25061/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT temporary and contractual basis with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate direction to the respondents to regularise their service. 2 It is the case of the petitioners that they are serving with respondent No.1-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Ahmedabad, since last five to seven years on a fixed pay-scale and,considering the nature of work available with the respondent- Commission and pursuant the recommendations contained in the report and Government Resolution dated 16th February 2006 to remove anomalies in the pay-scale and to regularize the service, their cases for regularization deserve consideration by the respondents in view of the service rendered by them since number of years. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relies on the report of Dr. P.K. Das Committee Government Resolution dated 16th February 2006 of the Department of Finance, State of Gujarat, and submits that the petitioners, though appointed purely on temporary basis on fixed pay-scale, are required to be regularized in service and appropriate directions may be given to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners. He further submits that the nature of duties reveals that the work is of permanent nature and the petitioners are qualified to continue on the post in question. He further submits that, since service of the bailiffs of the State Consumer Forum came to be regularized by the Competent Authority, the petitioners also deserve similar treatment. 4 Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relies upon the terms and conditions of the appointment letters of the petitioners and submits that the said appointment is purely contractual on temporary basis and all the petitioners are paid salary on a fixed pay-scale. So far as the State Government is concerned, according to her, no decision is taken to man SCA/25061/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT the post on permanent basis and considering the financial constrains, etc. at this stage, no decision can be taken to regularize service of the petitioners. She further submits, on instruction, that there is no intention on the part of the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioners, though purely contractual on temporary basis, and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is ill-founded. 5 Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents for regularization, etc. Even otherwise, the appointment of the petitioners is purely contractual on temporary basis and fixed pay- scale and the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the terms and conditions set out in the appointment orders on purely contractual on temporary basis. Therefore, the employer has all the right to act in accordance with law based upon the terms and conditions of the appointment orders. Even no right accrues to the petitioners on the basis of Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006 incorporating recommendations of Das Committee. 6 In view of the above, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 7 These petitions are rejected. The interim relief stands vacated. Notice in each petition is discharged with no order as to costs. 8. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the petitioners if they want to redress their grievances by way of representations to the respondents-Authorities. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)