Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 627 (GAU)

JYOTI BARMAN v. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2015-05-26

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard Mr A Adhikary, counsel for the petitioners and Mr D Bhattacharyya, counsel for the respondent APDCL. The facts involved in both the writ petitions being identical, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to prepare a scheme for regularization and absorption of the services of the petitioners. Petitioners’ case is that they were appointed as outsourced Meter Readers during the years 1993 to 2009 by the Assam State Electricity Board (for short, ‘ASEB’). According to the petitioners, they have been issued Identity Cards by the ASEB and performance reports have been prepared by the authorities in respect of their work performance. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been asked to undergo training programmes from time to time and they have successfully completed their training programmes. The petitioners’ counsel has submitted that as the petitioners have worked for a number of years under the ASEB which has now been trifurcated into three different entities, they should be regularized in the new entity in which they are working, which is APDCL. He further submits that some of the petitioners are getting old and they would not be able to get new jobs as they are going to be over-aged. Mr D Bhattacharyya, counsel for the APDCL submits that their stand is reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in both the writ petitions. He also submits that the petitioners are outsourced Meter Readers/ Bill Distributors working for the APDCL on pay per bill basis. The respondents’ counsel submits that the petitioners are neither given monthly wages nor daily wages but are being paid at the contractual rate of Rs. 1.50 per bill. He submits that the job of the petitioners is to read the meters, prepare and distribute bills etc. and they are paid Rs. 1.50 per reading of the meter or at the relevant rate applicable to Meter Readers/ Bill Distributor. He further submits that issuance of Identity Card to the petitioners does not clothe them with any legal right, in as much as, the same has been issued for practical purposes. He submits that unless the said Identity Cards are carried by the petitioners, sometimes the house owners debar them from entering into their premises. He further submits that issuance of Identity Card to the petitioners does not clothe them with any legal right, in as much as, the same has been issued for practical purposes. He submits that unless the said Identity Cards are carried by the petitioners, sometimes the house owners debar them from entering into their premises. He also submits that undergoing of training programmes by the petitioners was necessary as they had to be taught about the functioning of the new meter machines etc. He thus submits that the petitioners do not have any right to be regularized as they have not made their claims on the basis of any Government Policy, Notification or Rules. I have considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been appointed by the respondents as outsourced Meter Readers/ Bill Distributors on a contractual rate of Rs. 1.50 per bill. The petitioners not being paid a monthly salary or on daily wage basis, their appointment are basically ad-hoc arrangements. However, the ad-hoc arrangements have been going on for a long time. It is not denied by the counsel for the respondents that there are Meter Readers/ Bill Distributors in the APDCL who are regularized employees of APDCL and getting regular monthly wages. The petitioners have not claimed regularization on the basis of any Government Policy, Notification or Rules. The prayer made by them is to direct the respondents to prepare a scheme for permanent absorption/ regularization of the petitioners due to the long years of service, without claiming any right on the basis of any Policy, Notification or Rules etc. It is noticed that the Govt. of Assam, Finance (EC-II) Department has issued Office Memorandum dated 27th June, 2013, which is with regard to regularization of services of Work-Charged (WC), Muster Roll (MR) and similarly placed workers in pursuance of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10.4.2006 reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 (State of Karnataka –vs- Uma Devi & Ors.) read with orders in the case of State of Karnataka & others –vs- M.L. Mesari reported in 2010 (9) SCC 247 and this Court’s order dated 17.5.2006 in WP(C) No. 6222/2003 (Jiten Kalilta –Vs- State of Assam & Ors.). In Para 2 of the said Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013, it has been reflected as follows: “2. In Para 2 of the said Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013, it has been reflected as follows: “2. The State Government will now like to take the “One time measure” for regularization of those workers as referred to in paragraph 53 of the orders in Uma Devi’s case read with M.L. Kesari’s case whereby exception was curved out to regularize all employees who fulfill the following three conditions:- i) Who have been working continuously for 10 years or more as on 10.04.06 i.e. the date of passing of the judgment in Uma Devi’s case without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. ii) Who have been engaged against sanctioned vacant post. iii) Who have requisite qualification to hold the post.” The above Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013 has been issued for regularization of services of Work Charged, Muster Roll and similarly placed workers. In the present case, as has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents, the APDCL is having regularized Meter Readers/ Bill Distributors and there is a possibility that some more regularized employees may be needed. In that view of the matter and considering that the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department has issued the Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013 as stated above, the APDCL shall examine as to whether the services of the petitioners as Meter Readers/ Bill Distributors can be regularized/ permanently absorbed. Depending upon the outcome of the said examination, the APDCL shall pass consequential orders. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.