Work-charged employees qualify for temporary-establishment conversion only after completing 20 years’ service.

The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Harshadrai A. Desai and others, claimed that under the Gujarat Government Resolution dated 16.08.1973 (“G.R.”), work-charged employees became entitled to absorption into the temporary establishment and consequential service benefits after completing five years of work-charged service.

They also relied on instances where similarly situated work-charged employees had allegedly received such benefits.

The State contended that the Division Bench judgment dated 29.06.2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 380 of 2016 and connected matters had held that conversion was available only upon completion of 20 years of work-charged service, subject to the applicable conditions.

The petitioners subsequently claimed that they had completed 20 years of work-charged service and were therefore entitled to relief under the Division Bench judgment.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to absorption or conversion into the temporary establishment automatically upon completing five years of work-charged service under the G.R. dated 16.08.1973.

2. Whether, having completed 20 years of work-charged service, the petitioners were entitled to consideration for conversion into the temporary establishment and consequential benefits in accordance with the Division Bench judgment dated 29.06.2018.

The Court applied the G.R. dated 16.08.1973 as interpreted by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 380 of 2016 and connected matters, which held that there was no automatic right of absorption into the temporary establishment after five years of work-charged service.

Eligibility for conversion was to be considered after completion of 20 years of work-charged service, subject to availability of posts, seniority and other applicable conditions.

The Court also relied on K.N. Thanaki v. State of Gujarat for the principle that five years’ work-charged service did not result in automatic absorption.

The Division Bench further relied on Kartick Chandra Mondal and State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65, for the principle that Article 14 embodies a positive right of equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an alleged illegality merely because similarly situated persons had previously received an erroneous benefit.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that completion of five years of work-charged service by itself entitled them to conversion into the temporary establishment, as that proposition was inconsistent with the binding interpretation of the G.R. by the Division Bench.

The fact that some other work-charged employees had allegedly received absorption after five years could not independently establish an enforceable Article 14 claim or justify continuation of an erroneous practice.

However, since the petitioners asserted that they had subsequently completed 20 years of work-charged service, the Court held that their cases required consideration under the Division Bench’s directions, subject to their satisfying the applicable eligibility requirements.

Nevertheless, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners’ cases, if otherwise eligible, on the basis that they had completed 20 years of work-charged service and in accordance with the Division Bench judgment dated 29.06.2018.

Any consequential benefits arising from such consideration were directed to be computed and paid within 12 weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.