SCA/3525/1989 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3525 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ============================================================== 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 ? ============================================================== SHAIKH MOHMAD RAFIQ SHAIKH AMIR - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR PJ YAGNIK for Petitioner No(s).: 1,2,3,4. MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No(s).: 1, 2,3. ================================================================== CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 18/07/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT . 1. The petitioners by way of this petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to treat them as regular employees for the respondents. SCA/3525/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. This Court on 20th June, 2005 had passed the following order :- “Mr. P.J. Yagnik learned advocate requests for time with a view to enable him to make appropriate arrangement for informing the petitioner to engage another lawyer. S.O., to 18/07/2005.” 2.1. Today, Mr. Yagnik learned advocate for the petitioners state that he is not appearing for petitioner no. 1. and petitioners no. 2 to 4 are already absorbed in service by the respondent Department. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As stated by Mr. Yagnik that petitioners no. 2 to 4 are absorbed in service by the respondent Department and by efflux of time, petitioner no. 1 might also have been absorbed by the respondent Department. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it will not be appropriate to pass any order in this petition. Even otherwise in view of the affidavit-in-reply none of the petitioners are a regular appointee and they are doing miscellaneous work for a period of four hours per day. 4. In above view of the matter, the petition stands disposed of. However, if the petitioner no. 1 is not SCA/3525/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT absorbed in service, it will be open for him to raise the demand before the appropriate forum. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/