In the light of the rival companytentions, the Gujarat High Court framed three questions for their companysideration, viz.,
2 Whether the impugned termination orders were companytrary to BCS Rule 33 and hence, they were null and void and the inoperative of law.
They will number get any right for absorption in regular cadres of Sachivalaya and they will have to furnish an undertaking to this effect.
The orders of termination are dated 10.12.1989 and 11.12.1989.
The Gujarat High Court directed the status quo to be maintained which implied their companytinuance in Service.
This appointment is for a limited period up to the tenure of Ministers establishment.
The orders of appointment issued to the respondents are identical.
Aggrieved by the said orders of termination the respondents filed a batch of writ petitions in the Gujarat High Court claiming that they are entitle to be absorbed as permanent employees in the Service of the State of Gujarat Alternatively they companytended that the impugned orders of termination are bad being companytrary to Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, as also Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The order reads as follows The following persons are appointed as direct recruits on purely temporary basis in the office of the Chief Minister with effect from 6.7.1985 after office hours on the posts shown against their names.
1 whether the respondents State had discriminated against the petitioners by numberabsorbing them in the State service and instead terminating their services by impugned orders and whether the said action was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1991 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
Leave granted.
Having filed the writ petitions, they moved application for staying the operation of the termination orders.
In December 1989, a new Government came into office following the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly.
The State has placed before us a companyy of the Office Order dated 12.7.1985 issued from the General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat relating to the appointment of some of the respondents.
With the exit of the Ministers in whose establishments the respondents were appointed, the respondents were also issued orders of termination with effect from 18.12.1989.
The State, however, carried the matter to this Court which vacated the said orders, with result that the respondents went out of the office.
1826 37 of 1992.
P.J. Kampavat Clerk Typist 20.5.55 Relaxation is given on upper age limit.
8627 to 8633 of 1989, 8635 to 8638 of 1989 and 2937 of 1991.
Their services shall be liable to be terminated at any time without giving any numberice or assigning any reasons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
3 What reliefs were the petitioners entitled.
2 to 10 omitted.
Anil Nauriya and Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard companynsel for both parties.
Employee of Birth 1.
Respondents 1 to 12 were accordingly appointed in the category of Clerk Typists Director Peon.
They will have to furnish physical fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon immediately.
Name of Post Date Remarks No.
A. Dave, Bimal Roy Jad and Anip Sachthey for the Appellants.
In the year 1985, the Government of Gujarat thought it expedient to permit the Chief Minister and other Ministers to appoint persons of their choice in their respective establishments.
These appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing partly a batch of writ petitions filed by respondents 1 to 12.
Out of the above, those appointed on class III posts, are number eligible for special pay whereas those appointed on class IV posts are eligible to get special pay as per rules.
