(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr Gaurav Mehta holding brief of Mr Bharat R Pandya for the appellant and Mr Sudhanshu Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.4.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10802 of 1994.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was appointed and employed on scarcity relief work w.e.f. 5.10.1987 by the T.D.O., Halol, District Panchmahal. The appellant being handicapped, requested the T.D.O. to place him to the office work and vide order dated 2.3.1988, the appellant was transferred in the office of T.D.O. and the appellant resumed on 3.3.1988. Without issuing any notice, services of the appellant were terminated from 21.10.1988 and thus the tenure of appellant's service was from 5.10.1987 to 21.10.1988. After a lapse of four years, the appellant raised dispute before the competent authority and as the same could not be resolved, the dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra which came to be registered as Reference (LCG) No.450 of 1992. The Labour Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 31.5.1994, was pleased to allow the reference and directed the appellant-petitioner to reinstate the respondent on the original post with continuity of service and with full back wages.
2. The respondent filed writ petition before this court.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the respondent was appointed for scarcity relief work and though he is handicapped person, no benefit would accrue to him in view of the Full Bench Division of this court in H.K. Makwana v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [1994 (2) GLR 1002]. We have gone through carefully the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also considered the question as to whether any compensation is payable to the appellant or not and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that though the appellant is a handicapped person, since he was appointed for scarcity relief work, no compensation can be paid. We do not find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity.
3. This appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed along with the Civil Application.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.]
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
msp