In the case of the reinstatement of the Appellant as a full-time Gallery Attendant, the Division Bench’s judgment has been set aside, restoring the Single Bench’s ruling. The Respondents argued against the Appellant’s reinstatement, citing qualifying conditions not met. However, the Single Bench held in favor of the Appellant, granting reinstatement with consequential benefits. Find out more about this significant legal battle in the realm of employment law.
Facts
- The Appellant, who had been working as a part-time employee, successfully cleared the SSC examination.
- The Appellant was appointed as a full-time Gallery Attendant with prior permission.
- The Appellant filed representations requesting to be absorbed as a full-time Gallery Attendant after clearing the SSC examination.
- The Appellant served as a full-time Gallery Attendant for almost two years before his services were terminated due to financial constraints.
- The services of the Appellant were terminated again on the ground of not fulfilling requisite conditions for regularization.
- The Appellant filed a writ petition challenging the termination of services and a Single Judge refused to entertain the petition advising to proceed under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The Appellant filed another writ petition challenging the termination of services but was informed that he could not be made a full-time employee due to not clearing the SSC/10 standard examination.
- The Appellant argued that at the time of his appointment, the required qualification was 4th Standard Pass which he had.
- The Respondent argued that conditions for regularization were not fulfilled by the Appellant according to a Government Resolution.
- An interim order was passed restraining the termination of services and allowing reversion to a part-time employee if necessary.
- The Appellant was appointed as a part-time Gallery Attendant in Bhuj Museum on 14 March 1995.
- The Division Bench allowed the appeal of the Appellant and directed the Respondent Authorities to reinstate him to the post of full-time Gallery Attendant but without back wages.
- The Appellant will be entitled to differential salary between the full-time and part-time Gallery Attendant positions from July 25, 2002, onwards.
- The judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 22.08.2013 is binding on the Respondents.
- The Single Bench order dated 14 September 2015 granted the Appellant continuity of service benefits.
- The Respondents filed an appeal against the Single Bench order, which was allowed by the Division Bench.
Also Read: Analysis of Evidence in an Attempted Murder Case
Analysis
- Candidates appointed by direct selection are on probation for six months.
- Selected candidates appointed in Class IV posts can be transferred to other Class IV posts in public interest.
- Candidates are required to pass departmental and Gujarati/Hindi examinations as per government rules.
- Candidates appointed by direct selection must undergo job-specific training and pass prescribed examinations.
- The learned Single Bench rightly allowed the writ petition on 10 February, 2006.
- The employees should have been recommended by the Employment Exchange, Social Welfare Authority, etc.
- At the time of temporary appointment, the employee should have met the eligibility requirements.
- The appointment should have been sanctioned by a competent authority against a vacant post.
- The Appellant was appointed as a full-time Gallery Attendant Group-IV on 25.7.2002 with approval from the Director, Sangrahalaya.
- Fresh appointment to the Appellant on 14 October 2013 was not justified.
- Employees needed to have completed ten years of service, working at least 6 hours per day.
- The ten-year service period should not be based on any court or tribunal orders.
- Employees who completed ten years of service had to be appointed according to the prevailing recruitment procedures.
- The Appellant had not completed ten years of service as of 10 February 2006, according to the Government Resolution.
- The judgment and order concerning the Appellant had finality and bound the Respondents.
- The Single Bench erred by not clarifying that reinstatement would not include back wages for the period when the Appellant did not work.
- Conditions for regularization included fulfilling specific criteria as laid out.
- The Division Bench considered Letters Patent No. 635 of 2016 in relation to the Government Resolution dated 1 May 2007 of the Finance Department.
- The Resolution was issued following the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
- It was determined that the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) and the resolution dated 1 May 2007 cannot be applied retrospectively to the Appellant.
- The Appellant had been appointed as a full-time Gallery Attendant in 2002, predating the mentioned judgment and resolution.
- The Rules framed in 2005 were also noted to be irrelevant to the Appellant’s situation.
Also Read: Ownership Dispute in Motor Vehicle Insurance Case
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The Division Bench’s judgment and order have been set aside.
- The Single Bench’s judgment is restored with the modification that the Appellant will be reinstated with consequential benefits.
- The Appellant will not receive arrears of wages for the period from 18.12.2012 to 22.08.2013.
Also Read: Interpretation of Retirement Age in Government Service
Case Title: VINOD RAVJIBHAI RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT (2020 INSC 191)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001601-001601 / 2020
