Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager (8 hours/day) by the Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board on January 1, 1994, but was terminated on February 1, 1996
Source reference: p. 2The Labour Court, Rajkot, ordered reinstatement with continuity of service on March 22, 2006, a decision upheld by the High Court's Division Bench in 2009
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner was reinstated on January 15, 2010, but subsequently lost both legs in an accident in 2011, after which he was assigned table work
Source reference: p. 3The Board denied him benefits under Government Resolution (GR) dated October 17, 1988, claiming he was a "part-time" worker (5 hours/day) following his relocation
Source reference: p. 4, 7The petitioner challenged the Board's denial order dated October 12, 2017
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the Board was justified in denying the benefits of Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, by treating the petitioner as a part-time worker despite a judicial mandate of continuity of service
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the denial of benefits was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 10Law Applied
Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, which provides for pay scales, allowances, and retirement benefits for daily wagers upon completion of specific years of service
Source reference: p. 2, 4The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. P.W.D. Employees Union [(2013) 12 SCC 417], which mandates extending these benefits to daily wagers meeting length-of-service criteria
Source reference: p. 4Board’s own internal resolutions dated May 12, 1995, and May 6, 2002, which prescribe fixed and regular wages for part-time workers upon completion of 5 and 10 years of service respectively
Source reference: p. 6, 9Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the Labour Court granted "continuity of service," the Board was legally obligated to count the petitioner’s service from his initial 1994 appointment through to his reinstatement in 2010
Source reference: p. 8The Board’s attempt to reclassify the petitioner as a part-timer to deny benefits was deemed invalid because his original appointment was for 8 hours a day
Source reference: p. 8The Court observed that even if the petitioner were viewed as a part-timer, the Board’s own policies (1995 and 2002 resolutions) required the granting of fixed and regular pay after 5 and 10 years of service
Source reference: p. 9The Court found the Board's action discriminatory as other similarly situated part-time workers had been granted these benefits, whereas the petitioner was excluded without justification
Source reference: p. 10Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of GR dated October 17, 1988, by treating his service as continuous from January 1, 1994
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated October 12, 2017, directing the Board to calculate and pay all consequential benefits and arrears by July 31, 2026, failing which 6% interest per annum would apply
Source reference: p. 10-11Original Court PDF
PRAFULBHAI VIRABHAI VIRDAvsCHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in