SCA/8814/1989 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8814 of 1989 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 965 of 1990 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8814 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== PATEL NARENDRAKUMAR KANCHANLAL AND OTHERS Versus DABHOI MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR JIVANLAL G SHAH for Petitioners. MR DN PANDYA for Respondent No.1. MS HANSA PUNANI, AGP for Respondent No.2. RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent No.3. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 29/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/8814/1989 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to direct the State Government to continue to make grants to respondent no.1 – municipality for the expenditure incurred on execution of Malaria Scheme for which petitioners were temporarily employed and were liable to be discharged upon discontinuation of the Scheme. Another prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the municipality to continue to execute Malaria Scheme at least till the State Government continue to give grants for implementation of the Scheme. After filing of the petition in the year 1989, at the time of admission of the petition, respondent no.1 was, by way of interim relief, directed to continue Malaria Eradication Programme as directed by the State Government in pursuance of the scheme framed by the Central Government. It was stated at that time by learned counsel for the petitioners that till the State Government and/or Central Government decided the matter with regard to grant or other benefits, the petitioners would not claim such benefits from respondent no.1 – municipality and it was clarified that respondent no.1 – municipality will not bear any expenses for maintaining or continuing the Scheme. Thus, the Scheme, on which the petitioners were employed, was directed to continue only till the State Government ordered it to continue. 2. By filing an affidavit-in-reply of the Chief Officer of respondent no.1, it is, inter alia, stated that the State Government had entrusted execution and implementation of the Malaria Eradication Scheme through the respondent – municipality for a particular area, and the persons appointed to work on that Scheme or posts created for that Scheme were required to be treated as purely temporary and the appointments were also purely temporary. The appointments of employees on the Scheme as aforesaid, were liable to come to an end automatically, as and when operation or execution of the Scheme by the SCA/8814/1989 3/4 JUDGMENT municipality would end. It also transpires from the said affidavit that the municipality had certain disputes and demands regarding grant for the purpose of maintaining the staff working on said Scheme. 3. It was, however, submitted by learned counsel on both sides that subsequent to aforesaid interim order dated 30th March 1990, the Scheme had continued for some time and the petitioners also were not only continued in the employment of respondent no.1 but a conditional order dated 5-1-1995, of which a copy was placed and taken on record, was made to regularize services of 36 employees including the petitioners. It was, therefore, submitted at the bar that even as either the State Government or the Central Government were not directed to continue any welfare scheme or make specific grants to the respondent municipality for the purpose of continuing the employees like the petitioners, they had already completed more than 18 years of service and some of them had even retired by now on reaching the age of superannuation. Learned AGP, Ms.Punani appearing for the State Government also submitted that the Government can make payment of grants only in accordance with its Scheme and it cannot be saddled with any liability of the employees appointed or employed by the municipality for the purpose of carrying out the Scheme except in terms of the conditions contained therein; and in any case, the municipality has not come forward with any claim or grievance before the State Government. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as a matter of right. However, in view of admitted facts that the petitioners have worked under respondent no.1- municipality for a considerable length of time, as employees of respondent no.1, it would be open for the parties to settle amongst themselves their conditions of service and in case of SCA/8814/1989 4/4 JUDGMENT any difference or dispute, approach the appropriate forum. Subject to these observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged and interim relief stands vacated with no order as to costs. Civil Application No.965 of 1990 would not survive in view of above order. (D.H.Waghela, J.) *malek