Dabhi appears for and waives service on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Dhiren Mehta appears for and waives service on behalf of the respondents nos. 2 to 4. With the consent of the learned advocates, the matter is heard and finally disposed of today.
The petitioners before this Court are the employees of the District Panchayat, Jamnagar, serving as work-charged employees under the District Development Officer, Jamnagar in various capacities. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2nd June, 2000, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
It appears that the petitioners have been serving as work charged employees under the District Panchayat, Jamnagar for a long time. Some of such work charged employees had raised an industrial dispute and claimed the benefit of regularization in service and the consequential benefits. The said dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Jamnagar. The Industrial Tribunal had directed the District Panchayat, Jamnagar to regularize services of the said workmen w.e.f 1st April, 1985. The Award came to be challenged before this Court by the District Panchayat, Jamnagar. In course of the said challenge, the matter at dispute appears to have been compromised. The present petitioners also had claimed similar benefits by filing Special Civil Application No. 6538 of 1984. The said Special Civil Application was disposed of on 17th July, 1997 by this Court {Coram : S.K Keshote, J.}. Under the said order dated 17th July, 1997, the respondent-Panchayat was directed to consider the case of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said order, under order dated 18th November, 1997, the District Panchayat, Jamnagar partially accepted the claim made by the petitioners and directed to regularize them in service with effect from 1st April, 1985 with the benefit of notional pay fixation till 31st October, 1997. The said order dated 18th November, 1997 appears to have been implemented. However, it appears that the petitioners have been given undue preference in as much as other work-charged employees who may be senior to the petitioners have been deprived off the benefit which is conferred upon the present petitioners. To bring the situation at par, the impugned order has been made on 2nd June, 2000. Under the impugned order, the petitioners have been relegated back to their original position and the amount paid in excess, compared to the other senior work-charged employees, is sought to be recovered. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
The power of the District Panchayat to bring all its similarly situated employees at par cannot be questioned. However, once the benefit has been conferred upon the petitioners, the same cannot be taken away without giving them an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. In the present case, the impugned order was preceded by the show cause notice dated 22nd March, 2000. A bare perusal of the show cause notice reveals that the same is vague. No specific notice has been issued in respect of the action proposed to be taken by the District Panchayat. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have been given adequate opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The impugned order, therefore, calls for interference and requires to be quashed and set-aside.
The impugned order dated 2nd June, 2000 is quashed and set-aside on this ground alone. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. The necessary consequences under the law shall follow. It is clarified that the respondent-Panchayat shall be at liberty to take appropriate action to bring the petitioners at par with the other similarly situated employees; after giving them due notice to show cause against the proposed action. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
{Ms R.M Doshit, J.} Prakash*