Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Uniform Applicability of Benefits Across Departments: Gujarat High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak Reinforces 1988 Government Resolution for All Daily Wage Workers, Ensuring Fair Treatment

In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court, under the judgment delivered by Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, upheld the rights of a daily wage worker, Dilipbhai Gopalbhai Bavaliya, affirming the applicability of the 1988 Government Resolution (G.R.) concerning benefits for daily wage employees across various government departments. The Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondents, directing the appropriate revision of pay and payment of arrears to the petitioner.

Dilipbhai Gopalbhai Bavaliya, appointed as a daily wager on the post of Peon on October 11, 1985, had continuously rendered his services under the respondents. Despite fulfilling the criteria for benefits under the G.R. dated October 17, 1988, the petitioner faced the withdrawal of these benefits following an audit objection. Subsequent legal battles led to multiple appeals, with the petitioner seeking justice against the arbitrary and unjust actions of the respondents.

Justice Prachchhak emphasized that the 1988 G.R. is applicable to daily wage workers across all departments of the Gujarat government, not just limited to the Roads & Buildings Department. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in "State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union and Ors.," which reinforced this applicability.

The judgment highlighted previous decisions by the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court that have consistently upheld the rights of daily wage workers to receive benefits under the 1988 G.R. Justice Prachchhak noted the discriminatory practice of denying these benefits to the petitioner, despite similar workers in other departments receiving them.

The court criticized the respondents for failing to provide a fair hearing and for issuing recovery notices without proper justification. Justice Prachchhak underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing opportunities for representation before making such decisions.

"The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is applicable to the daily wage workers in all departments of the State of Gujarat. Any action contrary to this principle is not only illegal but also discriminatory," observed Justice Prachchhak, underscoring the broader applicability of the resolution.

The judgment meticulously discussed the legal precedents and principles of equity, reinforcing the stance that government resolutions aimed at benefiting daily wage workers must be uniformly applied across all departments. The court reiterated that denying these benefits based on departmental affiliation is unjust and against established legal norms.

The Gujarat High Court's ruling in favor of Dilipbhai Gopalbhai Bavaliya sets a crucial precedent for the treatment of daily wage workers across the state. By reaffirming the applicability of the 1988 Government Resolution, the court has ensured that workers in similar positions receive equitable treatment, thereby strengthening the legal framework for labor rights in Gujarat. This landmark decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, promoting fairness and justice for daily wage employees across various government departments.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Dilipbhai Gopalbhai Bavaliya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Latest Legal News