(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Learned counsel for the parties have placed before this Court copy of Resolution No.123 dated 7.1.2012 and another general board Resolution No.101 dated 20.10.2011. The parties have also produced on record the broad terms of consensus for amicably settling the disputes running over a great length of time. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed with the order as under along the line of broad consensus arrived at among the parties.
2. All the appellants are working as daily wagers under the respondent no.3-Nagarpalika for more than 15 years of service. The Nagarpalika vide its letter dated 28.7.1998 had applied to Collector, Sabarkantha, to grant sanction for appointing 149 employees and the Collector by letter dated 28.7.1998 had also recommended the same. Thereafter, vide Resolution dated 7.12.2000, the Nagarpalika sought approval of the Collector to engage 48 person i.e. the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.2764 of 2001. The said Resolution was disapproved by the Collector by order dated 26.2.2001 and the Nagarpalika was directed to engage daily rated persons on contract basis so that the employees may not approach the Court for the benefit of regularization and unnecessary litigation may be avoided. The said Resolution was challenged in Special Civil Application No.2764 of 2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2003. While admitting present Letters Patent Appeal on 27.1.2004, order of the Collector dated 26.2.2001 was stayed after hearing all the parties.
3. During the pendency of the present matters, the Nagarpalika had sent a detailed proposal to Collector, Himmatnagar, and the Director of Municipalities, Gandhinagar, on 24.10.2011 and 11.11.2011 to absorb those employees on the sanctioned posts who are working for more than ten years. Lastly on 7.1.2012 the Nagarpalika has passed Resolution No.123 for absorbing those daily wagers in the sanctioned posts who have worked for more than ten years in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others [2006 (4) SCC 1]. The Nagarpalika has specifically stated that if such daily wagers are absorbed in the sanctioned set up then total expenditure of the Nagarpalika will not exceed the limit of 48% as set by the State Government.
4. In view of what is stated above, Letters Patent Appeal No.127 of 2003 and Special Civil Application No.2638 of 1994 are disposed of with the direction to the Director of Municipalities, Gandhinagar, to consider aforesaid Resolution No.123 dated 7.1.2003 passed by the Himmatnagar Nagarpalika in accordance with paragraphs 52 and 53 of judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. It is further clarified that the Director of Municipalities shall decide the cases of present appellants without being influenced by order dated 16.1.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.3764 of 2001.
5. While the above process for regularization of service of the employees concerned is carried on and completed, service conditions of all those employees shall not be altered to their prejudice in the meantime. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the impugned order dated 16.1.2003 in Special Civil Application No.3764 of 2001 is set aside. In view of this order, Special Civil Application No.2638 of 1994 does not survive, as stated by learned counsel, Ms.Shanu Pathan, appearing for the petitioner, and therefore, it is also disposed accordingly.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Mohinder Pal, J.) *malek Top