IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3219 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- NAGJI KANJI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.Parmar, with MR PH PATHAK for the Petitioners. Ms.Binoda Gajjar, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 10/12/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed that they should be treated as regular employees from the date of their appointment and that their services should be regularised. The names of the concerned employees, on whose behalf this petition is filed, are annexed at page 14, Annexure `A'. It is the say of the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue as daily wagers for a long time and the Department should give them permanency. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr.Parmar, appearing for the petitioners, states that the concerned petitioners are already given the benefit of permanency on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee, known as "Dolat Parmar Committee". The said Government Circular is dated 17.10.1988 and according to him, the benefit is already made available to the petitioners of this petition. Since the aforesaid benefit of permanency is extended to the petitioners, nothing further is required to be done in this petition and this petition has become infructuous. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. 10th December, 2001 ( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) **** (apj)