C/SCA/16049/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16049 of 2016 ========================================================== PRESIDENT - UMRETH MUNICIPALITY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS KRISHNA D DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS MEDHA N PANDYA(6171) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 02/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. These facts are not in dispute: 1.1. That the respondent Nos.4 to 6 had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.3552 of 2015 seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their case for regularization in services since they had rendered nearly 35 years of service. 1.2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 17.3.2016 allowed the writ petition in the following terms:- “In the result, this writ-application is allowed. The Director of Municipalities, State of Gujarat, and the State Government, shall pass necessary orders regularizing the services of the three petitioners within a period of one month and the consequential benefits be accordingly extended to the petitioners who have retired from service. Direct service is permitted.” C/SCA/16049/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 1.3. It is admitted by the parties that as against this order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal, being Letters Patent Appeal No.809 of 2016, was preferred only by the State and by the District Collector and this appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated 20.2.2019. Thus, the orders regularizing the services of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 were affirmed by the Division Bench and as a consequence, their services were required to be regularized. 2. It is also admitted that since the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were not regularized, contempt proceedings were initiated by them and as a consequence, the Government passed orders regularizing the services of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and while so passing the orders of regularization, the Government accepted the liability to pay the benefits arising out of the said order, it has imposed a condition that the Municipality will have to bear the salaries pursuant to the orders of regularization. 3. The Municipality, being aggrieved by this condition, is before this Court by way of this writ petition, principally contending that in respect of a similar Municipality, i.e. Dwarka Municipality, the Government had passed an order on 8.1.2013 which was modified by an order dated 12.6.2014, copies of such orders are produced as Annexure-A (Page-20/A to 20/C to the writ petition. Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/16049/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 4. It is contended that under those orders of the year 2013 and 2014, the Government had undertaken to pay the salaries, but in the case of respondent Nos.4 to 6, the Government had taken contrary stand that the Municipality will have to bear the burden of salaries of respondent Nos.4 to 6, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. It is also contended that this imposition of the condition is contrary to the resolution passed by the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board dated 11.7.2016 and that condition is required to be quashed and the burden of paying the salaries to respondent Nos.4 to 6 will have to be borne by the State alone. 6. In my view, this argument being advanced by the Municipality is bereft of any merits. If the Municipality has taken the responsibility of employing the respondent Nos.4 to 6, it is needless to state that the obligation to pay their salaries is to that of the Municipality. The Municipality having suffered an order by which this Court has directed the regularization, cannot disown its liability to pay their salaries by shifting the burden on the State Government. Merely because the State Government in the year 2013 and 2014 had undertaken to pay the salaries in respect of Dwarka Municipality, that cannot be a ground for the petitioner Municipality to insist that the salaries in respect of respondent Nos.4 to 6 be paid by the Government. It is to be borne in mind that it is entirely the discretion of the Government to undertake a financial burden and if a Municipality has chosen to employ a person to discharge its C/SCA/16049/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 functions, it cannot shift the liability of paying salaries on the Government by citing the similar orders passed in respect of any other Municipality. I am therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the petition is accordingly DISMISSED. Rule is discharged. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 makes a grievance that despite the order passed by this Court way back in 2016, their financial benefits are not fully paid. If that is so, the Municipality shall ensure that the orders passed by this Court are complied and all the dues that are to be paid to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are cleared. Sd/- (NSSG,J) OMKAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/07/2025 11:01:47