Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 446 (GAU)

Kutub Uddin Kazi v. State of Assam

2003-09-22

I.A.ANSARI

body2003
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By making this application, the petitioners, who have been working as Muster Roll workers/Work Charge employees in Baskandi Development Block under North Cachar, district on being engaged after cut off, date 1.4.1993, fixed by the Government for engaging persons in the capacity as aforementioned, have approached this Court, with the help of the present writ petition, seeking regularization of their services and commanding the respondents not to dis-continue their services and pay to them their salaries/wages since the month of April, 1996. 2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners runs as follows : The petitioners were appointed as Muster Roll Worker/Work Charge employees in the office of the respondent No. 6, namely, Block Development Officer, Baskandi Development Block, P.O. Bauskandi Dist Cachar, Assam, at a fixed pay of Rs. 900 per month on different dates after the cut off date of 1.4.1993 fixed by the Government for engaging persons as Muster Roll Workers/Work charge employees. They have been receiving their salaries/wages up to March, 1996, and thereafter, the payment of salaries/wages have been stopped, though they are still working in the same capacity in which they been engaged. 3. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that the averments made in the writ petition have not been disputed by the respondent. This Court has, therefore, no option but to proceed on the premises that the averments made by the writ petitioners are true and correct. 4. Heard Mr. M.H Rajborbhuiyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, and Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 5. In respect of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge employees, the State Government, admittedly, formulated a policy that only those Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge employees, who are were appointed prior to 1.4.1993, shall be allowed to continue thereafter and the directions were issued by the Government to the department concerned to discontinue the services of the persons, who have been engaged in the capacity aforementioned after the cut off date of 1.4.1993. The State Government took up necessary scheme for regularization of the services of those persons, who were appointed prior to 1.4.1993. Many of the persons, who were appointed after 1.4.1993, approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was, eventually, disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 18.12.1993. The State Government took up necessary scheme for regularization of the services of those persons, who were appointed prior to 1.4.1993. Many of the persons, who were appointed after 1.4.1993, approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was, eventually, disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 18.12.1993. This case is reported in : 2000 (1) GLT 243 (Achyut Ch. Pathak and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.) While dealing the matter, the Division Bench has laid down as follows : "In view of the discussions held above, it is quite obvious that no direction of any kind can legally be given in this regard. It is in the realm of taking a policy decision of the State Government. There cannot be any justification for making appointment in excess of the requirements and against the clear direction of the State Government not to appoint any such staff after a particular date. Flouting of such instructions by some officers creates problems for all. So for employees are concerned, they hand on in uncertainty without accrual of any right for regularization in absence of any sanctioned post or, in some cases, entry into the service against the rules...................................................... Learned counsel for the appellants had, however, submitted that in any case, the appellants, who have been appointed after 1.4.1993, they may be considered for regular appointment as and when such recruitment is made against available vacancies. We hardly feel that there is any need to issue any such direction. In case sanctioned posts and vacancies exist and the recruitment is made, all eligible persons would be entitled for consideration. No exception in that regard can be made in respect of the appellants .................................................................................... However, in case such persons are considered for recruitment against any sanctioned vacancy, if and when available, some sympathetic consideration may be made for relaxation of their age for the period they worked, as well as, where other things beings equal, their experience if of any use, may also be taken into account. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in , State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mamtarnj Sahoo and Anr. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in , State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mamtarnj Sahoo and Anr. Our attention has been drawn to the observations made in para 12, where the request of the petitioners are accepted to the effect that if the State makes any scheme for regularization, then the benefit of that scheme may not be denied to them. Suffice it to observe that it is always open to the State Government to frame any such scheme and in case the Government prepares, any scheme for regularization of appointees after 1.4.1993, obviously, the appellants could not left out of consideration. The learned Single Judge has left this matter entirely to the State Government and we find no good reason to interfere in that part of the order. In view of the discussion held above, subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. All the above noted 34 Writ Appeals are therefore, dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, operating, stand discharged." 6. Subsequent to the above decision in Achyut Ch. Pathak (supra), the State Government considered the question of continuing with the engagement of those categories of Muster Roll Workers/Work. Charge employees, who had been appointed after 1.4.1993, and formulated a scheme vide Office Memorandum, dated 30.10.2001 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The relevant portion of this memorandum runs as follows: "After a careful consideration of all the aspect it has been decided that the MRW/WC employees who were engaged after 1.4.1993 and completed 5 (five) years of continuous service as on 24.1.2001 shall only continue in service in their respective capacity subject to proper verification of their engagements by the respective Appointing Authorities. All the Appointing Authorities are hereby requested to ensure that no further engagements are made by them without prior approval of the SLEC and Finance Deptt. If any Appointing Authority makes any engagement in violation of the above directives, he will be personally responsible for payment of Wages/Salaries and will be liable for departmental action as per rules. In implementing the above decision the appointing Authorities are also to terminate the services of those MRW/WC employee who have not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service as on 24.1.2001." 7. In implementing the above decision the appointing Authorities are also to terminate the services of those MRW/WC employee who have not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service as on 24.1.2001." 7. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. M.H Rajborbhuiyan has candidly submitted that though the writ petitioners, in this case, have made a prayer for regularization of their services, yet in view of the fact that there is no Government's scheme/policy for regularization of the service of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge employees, who are appointed after 1.4.1993, the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 30.10.2001, aforementioned be given to the writ petitioners. Mr. H. K. Mahanta, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has not been able to submit anything to show as to why the submission so made, on behalf of the writ petitioners, be not acceded to by this Court. 8. In view of the fact that the writ petitioners have categorically stated in para 3 of the writ petition that though they are not being paid their salaries/wages after March, 1996, yet they have been working as Muster Roll Workers, it becomes clear that the writ petitioners have been working for more than 5 years from the dates of their appointment/engagements in the capacity aforementioned. Viewed from this angle, it is clear that the cases of the petitioners are fully covered by the Office Memorandum aforementioned. 9. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with directions that the respondent-authorities shall treat the cases of the writ petitioners in terms of the directions contained in the Office Memorandum, dated 30.10.2001, aforementioned and pay to the writ petitioners in terms of the said Office Memorandum with effect from 1.4.1996. Arrear wages, if any, of the petitioners shall be made available to the writ petitioners within of 6 (six) months from today. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.