STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus KARSHANBHAI K. RABARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 18-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
v. 
KARSHANBHAI K. RABARI AND ORS. 
JULY 18, 2006 
B 
[ ARIJlT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Temporary employees of State Government-Entitlement to benefits 
C under Government Resolution at par with regular employees-Single Judge 
of High Court denied the benefit-Division Bench held them entitled to the 
benefits under the Resolution and also to the benefits apart from the 
Resolution-On appeal, held: The entitlement of the temporary employees to 
the benefits under the Resolution required to be considered in the light of 
D the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Uma Devi's and Ma nu Dev Arya's 
cases-Hence matter remitted to High Court. 
In a Writ Petition by daily workers-respondents, Single Judge of High 
Court denied them benefit under a Government Resolution at par with the 
regular employees on the ground that they were temporarily appointed for 
E transitory work on a work charge basis and could not be treated at par with 
regular employees. Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench 
holding that the respondent-employees were entitled to all the benefits available 
to the permanent employees of the State Government under the Resolution; 
and that they were also entitled to other benefits, apart from the benefits 
specifically mentioned in the Resolution. 
F 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the view expressed by 
this Court was contrary to the judgment in Umadevi 's case and also contrary 
to Manu Dev Arya's case. 
Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to High Court, this Court 
G 
HELD: The case of the parties has to be considered in the light of the 
H 
judgments passed by this Court in Uma Devi's case and in Manu Dev Arya's 
case. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
consideration, keeping ip view what has been indicated by this Court in the 
above-mentioned cases. (665-A-B] 
660 
STA TE OF GUJARAT v. KARSHANBHAI K.RABARI [PASAYA T, J.] 661 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., (20061 4 A 
SCC 1 and Union of India and Anr. v. Manu Dev Arya, (2004) 5 SCC 232, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3018 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2004 of the High Court of B 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in L.P.A. No. 1134/1997. 
R.P. Bhatt, Shivangi, Pinky Behera and Hemantika Wahi for the 
Appellants. 
S.C. Patel for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. Leave granted. 
c 
The State of Gujarat and Superintending Engineer, Capital Project Circle, D 
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Gujarat High Court . By the impugned judgment the Division 
Bench set aside the judgment of a learned Single judge· who had dismissed 
the writ petition filed by the respondents. Learned Single Judge held that the 
respondents were daily workers who were temporarily appointed for transitory 
work on a work charge basis and could not be treated at par with regular E 
employees who were appointed on the basis of Recruitment Rules. 
The Division Bench by the impugned judgment held that the respondents 
were entitled to all the benefits available to permanent employees of the State 
Government under the.Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and no order F 
diluting/reversing the same can/could be passed by any other Authority/ 
Functionaries of the State Government. Accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal 
filed by the respondents was allowed and the Communication/Order dated 
12.8.1991 by the State Government was quashed. It was held that benefits 
apart from those clearly mentioned in the resolution dated 17.10.1988 like 
leave travel concession, leave increment, various advances, allotment of G 
Government quarter were admissible to daily wagers covered under the said 
resolution. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed by 
the Division Bench is clearly contrary to what has been stated by a Constitution 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uniadevi 
and Ors., [2006] 4 SCC. I. It was further submitted that the Division Bench 
erroneously held that other benefits apart from those expressly mentioned in 
the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were admissible as the expression "etc" 
(etcetera) has been mentioned. It was submitted that the view expressed in 
B this 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.