ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Learned advocates waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2023, while recording the fact that none of the respondents who are 9 in number, were in service prior to filing of the writ petitions, has granted the interim relief staying the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Page 1 of 8
3. The respondents had filed the captioned writ petition with the following prayers:
"9[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent Panchayat department and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and to regularize their services at par with similarly situated Multi-purpose health workers (Male)(Class-
III) from the date of their appointment & to grant consequential and incidental benefits in the interest of justice;"
4. The case of the respondents is that they should be regularized in view of the various judgements passed by this Court. The learned Single Judge, after examining the array of judgements, which are passed in Multipurpose Health Workers relating to issue of regularization, has ultimately held that the Multipurpose Health Workers who are similarly situated to them are ordered to be regularized pursuant to the order passed by the different Benches. The learned single judge has decided the cut-off date of regularization as 10.08.2016. The learned Single Judge has recorded that such Multipurpose Health Workers who are appointed on contractual basis from the year 2004-05 to the year 2018-19 are entitled for regularization. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected
Page 2 of 8
the writ petition filed by such Multipurpose Health Workers, who were terminated in the year 2012 and 2013.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Jain appearing for the appellant has produced a chart of giving the details of all the respondents and has submitted that none of the respondents would be entitled to any benefits arising out of the orders passed by this Court, whereby the service of the Multipurpose Health Workers have been regularized. He has submitted that in fact, vital information has been suppressed by the respondents in the writ petition and hence, they are not entitled to any benefits, as directed by the learned Single Judge. He has further submitted that the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.652 of 2023 and allied matters on an identical issue of regularizing of Multipurpose Health Workers has set aside the order passed by the learned single judge directing the regularization of Multipurpose Health Workers who are appointed on contractual basis. Thus, it is urged that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge apropos the present respondents may be set aside.
Page 3 of 8
6. Learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing for the respondent-employees has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. He has submitted that at least one of the respondents i.e. respondent No.6 has continued on contractual basis from 2018 and worked on outsourcing basis from 2022, his services are ought to be regularized. It is submitted that in fact, similar benefits which are extended to the other Multipurpose Health Workers pursuant to the order passed by the State Government is required to be followed in the case of the respondents also. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained.
7. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
8. The issue with regard to regularization of the Multipurpose Health Workers has been subject matter of deliberation since the year 2011. It appears that the association had filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 claiming the regularization of service and ultimately, the learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 25.07.2018 allowed such writ petition.
Page 4 of 8
9. In the present case, the facts would suggest that none of the respondents area appointed on regular basis and have continuously worked for more than 10 years. A detailed statement showing the contractual appointments of the respondents is not disputed. A perusal of the same would reveal that (i) respondent - Parmar Jigarbhai Prakashbhai had served on contractual basis from 10.03.2007 till 09.02.2008, (ii) respondent - Naik Prahladbhai Govindbhai was appointed in the year 2007 and he has served on contractual basis with break-in-service ranging from 5 days to 32 days till 2012, (iii) respondent - Vasaiya Vikrambhai M. was appointed in 2005 and his contract period got over on various days and there were break-in-service ranging from 5 days to 260 days till the year 2014 and again he was appointed for 3 months till 2017 with break-in- service as his contractual period was not extended. So far as (iv) respondent - Parmar Achal Bhagubhai is concerned, he was appointed in 2007 and continued as such initially till 2009 with break-in-service of 32 days and he was thereafter, appointed in the year 2009 and 2010 with break-in-service of 5-7 days and ultimately, his contract was not extended from 2010 onwards.
(v) respondent - Bhabhor Parthibhai Malabhai was appointed in 2005 and his contract does not appears to be extended from 2010 and for intervening period, he was appointed on
Page 5 of 8
contractual basis with break-in-service of 71 days. (vi) respondent - Damor Shaileshbhai D. was appointed in 2007 and his contractual period was extended from 2007-08 till 2009 i.e. 12.02.2009 with break-in-service of 32 days. From 18.02.2009 to 17.01.2010 for 5 days and from 07.02.2010 to 06.01.2011 for 20 days, from 10.01.2011 to 09.12.2011 for 38 days and thereafter, from 17.01.2012 to 16.11.2012 with 38 days and after a period of 2.5 years, he has been appointed on contractual basis from 15.09.2015 to 25.06.2018. Thus, he did not assail his non-renewal of contract, which got over on 16.11.2012 and after
2.5 years, he was again appointed on contractual basis. He continued as such till 2018 and thereafter, his contract period was not extended however, he has been appointed through outsourcing on 13.04.2022. Thus, his entire tenure of service does not reveal that he has remained continuously engaged for 10 years. Similarly, (vii) respondent - Chrasian Rilke Mukundray was appointed in 2007 and his contractual period was not extended from 24.12.2010. (viii) respondent - Machhar Shaileshbhai Lalubhai was appointed in 2005 and his contractual period has not been extended from 2012 and for the intervening period, he was being engaged in break-in-service on contractual period. (ix) respondent - Gohil Shaileshkumar Mansinh was appointed on 10.03.2007 and his
Page 6 of 8
contractual period ended on 09.02.2008 and has not been thereafter reengaged.
10. Thus, the details of the respondents as mentioned hereinabove would clarify that they have been appointed on contractual period on contractual basis intermittently. None of them has assailed non-renewal of contractual period.
11. In identical facts the coordinate bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.652 on identical facts and in case of Multipurpose health workers who were appointed on contractual basis has set aside the order passed by the learned single judge by recording that such Multipurpose Health Workers were not appointed by undergoing the regular recruitment process. We are not inclined to take any contrary view which has been expressed by the coordinate bench.
12. It appears that the aforesaid facts were not pointed out before the learned Single Judge. In light of the aforesaid facts of each of the respondents the directions issued apropos the respondents for regularizing their service cannot be sustained.
Page 7 of 8
13. The present appeal succeeds. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge regularizing the respondents, who were appointed on contractual basis, is required to be quashed and set aside.
14. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/89
Page 8 of 8