Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal on 23.12.2010, served until his discontinuation in 2014, allegedly without due process. He approached the High Court of Gujarat in 2015 under Articles 226 and 227, seeking a writ of mandamus for reinstatement and payment of minimum wages. During the pendency, a representation made in 2016 was turned down. Meanwhile, this Court, in a batch of matters including Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019, led to the State issuing a Resolution dated 16.07.2019, mandating reinstatement of all part-timers whose services had been terminated and providing fixed wages from 01.01.2019. The petitioner claimed to be covered by this resolution. The respondent State contended that the discontinuance was due to a reduction in the number of Tribunals from five to one, making reinstatement in the same post impossible, and that representation had already been rejected, though a fresh representation could be considered. The Court observed that it was undisputed the petitioner worked as a part-timer from 2010 to 2014, thus falling within the ambit of the resolution. However, acknowledging the administrative restructuring, the Court declined to issue a direct mandamus for reinstatement. Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks, and ordered the concerned authority to decide it sympathetically in light of the resolution and the observations made, by passing a reasoned order on or before 15.05.2026. Should reinstatement occur, benefits under the resolution were to be granted. The petition was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Part-Time Employee - Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019 - Reinstatement - The petitioner, who worked as part-time Sweeper for the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal from 2010 to 2014, sought reinstatement after discontinuation. The State Resolution dated 16.07.2019 directed reinstatement of all part-timers whose services were terminated with fixed wages from 01.01.2019. The Court held that the petitioner was covered by the resolution, but since the number of Tribunals had been reduced from 5 to 1, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation for reappointment in any appropriate institution/department sympathetically and pass a reasoned order by 15.05.2026. (Paras 3,5,6) B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Alternative Remedy - In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the employer government has a policy for reinstatement, the High Court may refrain from directly ordering reinstatement where administrative constraints exist, and instead direct the competent authority to decide a representation in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the government resolution. (Paras 5-6.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a part-time Sweeper discontinued from service, is entitled to reinstatement as per Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019, and if so, what relief can be granted in light of the reduction in the number of Tribunals.
Final Decision
Petition partly allowed; petitioner directed to make representation within two weeks; respondents to decide representation sympathetically by 15.5.2026 with reasoned order, and if reinstated, benefits of resolution shall be granted. No costs.
Law Points
- Government resolution dated 16.7.2019 issued by State of Gujarat requiring reinstatement of part-time workers whose services were terminated and payment of fixed wages from 1.1.2019
- Discretion of respondent authorities to consider representation for reappointment in light of reduction in number of tribunals
- Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue directions for consideration of representation
