1) In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed the below-quoted relief:
“Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the respondents-authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner and be further pleased to direct the respondents- authorities to pay equal pay for equal work by determining the pay-scale from the norms prescribed by the government and accordingly pay with consequential effect.”
2) It is the case of the petitioner set-out in the memorandum of petition that he came to be appointed on 15th July, 1992 as Peon/Water man at a fixed salary of Rs.100/- by the Taluka Development Officer. According to the petitioner though he was expected to work for four hours in a day, looking to the assignment given to him, he used to discharge his duties practically in excess of full working hours. The center at which he was placed had 13 schools under its control. Therefore, the volume of work to be done by him was more and extended to full working hours, this salary was gradually enhanced and ultimately to become Rs.900/- per month, but he was exploited by the employer all the time.
3) It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent failed to act as s model employer, treated him arbitrarily and violated his rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner therefore prayed that respondent authorities may be directed to regularize his service as Class IV employee in the school and grant salary on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work.
4) Heard learned advocate Mr.A.J. Sharstri with learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bhavin Pandya for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya for respondent No.3.
4.1) Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset fairly submitted that as per the order dated 23rd September, 2002 while issuing Rule, this petition was directed to be heard with being Special Civil Application No.6621 of 1993 to 6624 of 1993 raising similar issue, which petitions were disposed of by common oral judgment dated 25th July, 2007 by this Court.
4.2) Learned advocate for the petitioner made available for perusal of the Court a copy of the aforesaid order impugned dated 25th July, 2007 in the abovesaid group of petition and requested the Court to pass order on the same line and dispose of the petition. Those petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners to make a representation before the authority.
5) The relevant observations in the said judgment in Special Civil Application No.6621 of 1993 are as under:
“The request of Shri Shastri appears to be reasonable especially in view of the fact that these petitioners were initially appointed under the guidelines and policy of the State of engaging part time employees. At the relevant time, part time employees of such nature were permitted to be employed. The fact remains that petitioners, in fact, have been protected and under the Court's order, they have been continued for all these years but in case the work is available and if their continuation or regularization is not contrary to any existing policy, then, the respondents may consider their representation in accordance with the existing policy and Rules. In order not to disturb the equity, it is appropriate that the respondents be directed not to terminate the services till the representation is decided.
If the petitioners are desirous of making representation, the same shall be made within one month from today and the respective T.D.Os are directed to decide the representations, if made, by the petitioners in accordance with existing policy and law and till the representation is decided, the status-quo as on date be maintained.
In view of aforesaid directions, Shri Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw these petition. The permission as sought for is granted. The petitioners are dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged in each matter. Interim relief stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court again in case any adverse is passed by the authority.”
[Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5]
6) As requested by learned advocate for the petitioner herein, it is observed that if the petitioner is desirous to make a representation with regard to his grievance and the prayer, he is permitted to make such a representation. The representation shall be made to respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
6.1) If such representation is made, the same shall be decided by the Taluka Development Officer within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is directed that till such representation is decided, status quo with regard to service of the petitioner shall continue.
6.2) In view of above observation, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with a view to approach the competent authority, namely the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer. The permission to withdraw the petition is granted.
6.3) The Court is mindful of the fact that the order in the aforementioned group of petition was passed as back as on 25th July, 2007 and it was directed to the Taluka Development Officer to decide the representation within one month from the date of the order, in the course of the hearing of the present petition, therefore, the Court inquired from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to what was the outcome of those directions and whether the representation was decided, neither of the learned advocate had any information, nor were they able to
6.4) In the above view, it is clarified that if the authority has already decided the representation pursuant to above-mentioned order dated 25th July, 2007 in Special Civil Application Nos.6621 of 1993 to 6624 of 1993 against the petitioners, in that event, the order of continuance of status quo passed herein would not operate. In the alternative, the competent authority shall abide by the directions of this order.
7) The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn accordingly. Interim relief shall stand vacated. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(N.V. Anjaria, J) Anup