IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6833 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- HARSHADKUMAR M VANKAR Versus GUJARAT GRAM GRUH NIRMAN BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR Manoj Shrimali for Mr. GIRISH PATEL for Petitioner MR KH BAXI for Respondent No. 1-absent. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 12/12/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for re-employment in accordance with the provisions of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with effect from the date on which one J.L.Pandya was given re-employment in the service of the respondent Board with full back wages and consequential benefits. 2. Affidavits have already been exchanged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant papers on record. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary class-IV employee on 1.6.84 for two months and his services were continued till 15.10.85. His services were terminated by an order dated 10.10.1985 passed by the Secretary to the Gujarat Gram Gruh Nirman Board, Gandhinagar. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a peon on 1.6.84, while one J.L.Pandya was employed as a peon by the respondent Board subsequent to his appointment with effect from 29.11.84. The petitioner was senior in service. Servics of six persons including the petitioner and Pandya were terminated by one and the same order dated 10.10.85. However, J.L.Pandya was given re-employment in service from 22.12.1986. The petitioner also moved a representation on 2.1.87, but no reply has been given so far. The action of the respondent Board in giving re-employment to J.L.Pandya who was junior to the petitioner and not giving remployment to the petitioner is clearly in violation of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. N.S.Patel, Administrative Officer of the respondent Board and Mr. N.K.Malek, Administrative Officer of the Board have filed their affidavits-in-reply. In para-9 of the affidavit of Mr. N.S.Patel, it is clearly mentioned that it is absolutely wrong to say that J.L.Pandya was employed after the petitioner was employed. In fact, J.L.Pandya was initially employed from 17.9.83 by an earlier order. As such, the provisions of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application and action is not violative of Section 25(H) of the said Act or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In re-joinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied that J.L.Pandya was earlier from 17.9.83 and no record has been placed on record of this Court. From the assertions made in the petition as well as affidavit-in-reply, it appears that Mr. Pandya was appointed earlier in point of time from the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a right for re-employment over Mr. Pandya. The petitioner was appointed initially for a period of two months purely on temporary basis and his service was continued till 15.10.85 as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were taken for a certain period though lateron his services were continued till the date of termination order. Thus, no vested right has accrued in favour of the petitioner for re-employment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have any legal right for re-employment in the same department. As such, this writ petition has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation alongwith a copy of this order to the department concerned for re-employment within a period of two months from today and in case such a representation is made by the petitioner before appropriate authority within stipulated time aforesaid, the appropriate authority will decide the same within two months sympathetically subject to the eligibility of the petitioner, forgoing the issue of age limit of the petitioner and subject to availibility of vacancy in the department concerned within two months thereafter. (Kundan Singh,J) ***darji