Employment Rights and Continuity of Service: Supreme Court Verdict in Vinod Ravjibhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat

The case of Vinod Ravjibhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat revolves around the rights of a part-time government employee seeking reinstatement as a full-time employee with continuity of service benefits. The appellant challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision denying him full benefits despite being reinstated after wrongful termination.

The appellant, Vinod Ravjibhai Rajput, was initially appointed as a part-time Gallery Attendant at Bhuj Museum in 1995. In 2002, he was promoted to a full-time position but was later terminated in 2004 due to government policies restricting new appointments. After a long legal battle, the Supreme Court examined whether he was entitled to continuity of service from 2002 onwards.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that he was legally appointed as a full-time Gallery Attendant with proper sanction from the Director of the Sangrahalaya Department. His sudden termination violated his employment rights. The petitioner contended:

“The judgment and order in Uma Devi (supra) or the resolution dated 1st May 2007 adopted pursuant to the said judgment and order cannot be retrospectively applied to the Appellant, who had duly been appointed full-time Gallery Attendant way back in 2002.”

He further claimed that since he cleared his SSC examination and met eligibility criteria, he should be granted full reinstatement with continuity of service.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State of Gujarat argued that the petitioner was not entitled to full-time employment as he lacked the required SSC qualification at the time of his appointment. They cited:

“The employees who had completed ten years of service should have been appointed in accordance with recruitment procedure prevailing at the relevant point of time.”

They claimed that the petitioner failed to meet these requirements and was reappointed only after a court order.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court analyzed whether the petitioner’s service from 2002 onwards should be treated as continuous. It noted:

“The Appellant has to be reinstated with continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment as full-time Gallery Attendant in July 2002, but without back wages for the period between 18.12.2012 to 22.08.2013.”

The Court found that the government’s argument regarding retrospective application of rules was unjustified and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service from 2002 and granted him differential salary benefits, excluding back wages for the period he did not work. This ruling reaffirms employee rights against arbitrary terminations.

Petitioner Name: Vinod Ravjibhai Rajput.
Respondent Name: State of Gujarat & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Bhuj, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 14-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vinod Ravjibhai Rajp vs State of Gujarat & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-02-2020.pdf