Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 191 (UTT)

Gopal Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-05-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are part-time Chaukidar working in the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. Some of the petitioners are working as far back since 1985 and some of them are working since 2000-2001 onwards, but in each case, they have served more than 10 to 15 years in the Department. The petitioners claim regularization of their services as Chaukidar. 2. Their claim is being opposed by the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan – Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal on the grounds, firstly, the petitioners were never given regular appointment of Chaukidar in the Department, secondly, they are not working against any post, and thirdly, there is no post of part-time Chaukidar in the Department. Moreover, nothing has been shown by the petitioners in the present or the past structure of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan about the post of part-time Chaukidar. As far as the salary of the petitioners is concerned, admittedly, the petitioners are not on a regular salary, but they are being given remuneration, though initially when they started as part-time Chaukidar, they were getting Rs. 100/- per month, which have been increased from time to time, and presently they are getting Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 3. It is again an admitted case of the petitioners that their services are not transferable and they are working in the same village where they are reside. Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan has to operate water tank or other source of water for the purpose of drinking water. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the only work assigned to the petitioners (since they are the local persons of the village), is to open the tap in the morning and to close the same in the evening, and apart from that they were also assigned some minor duties at times. Being a resident of same village where such scheme is in operation, they were best suited persons, for which they are getting the remuneration. 4. They are not the employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan nor they have any lien for regularization. There is nothing to show from the record that the petitioners were ever given any regular appointment by the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan at any stage of time. 5. 4. They are not the employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan nor they have any lien for regularization. There is nothing to show from the record that the petitioners were ever given any regular appointment by the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan at any stage of time. 5. This matter is squarely covered by the Constitution Bench Judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs Uma Devi & others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has come down heavily upon regularization being made by the Government on temporary or ad-hoc posts in some cases where the appointment itself was totally irregular. Moreover, the present controversy at hand already stands settled by a judgment given by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS No. 6958 of 2001 (decided on 07.08.2004) wherein the claim of the part-time fitters, such as the present petitioners, was rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of the same reads as under:- “Undoubtedly for regularization of services one needs sanctioned posts of class IV employees against which one can be regularized. The charter of demands and the minutes of the talks held by the petitioners with Executive Engineer of Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Uttarkashi which are Annexure to the writ petition show that there is no item either in the demand or in the minutes relating to regularization of petitioners. Rather, it only relates to the points of timely payment of wages to the part time Chaukidars and demand No. 7 relates to the minimum wages Rs. 1550.00 per month instead of Rs. 400.00 per month for which the matter was referred by the Executive Engineer to the headquarter of the Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Dehradun. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, since there is no legal right which accrued to the petitioners and this court can not direct to regularization of the services of the petitioners as class IV employees. However, petitioners demand for raising minimum wages of Rs. 400.00 per month to Rs. 1550.00 per month deserves sympathetic consideration on the part of the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with said observation. No order as to costs.” 6. However, petitioners demand for raising minimum wages of Rs. 400.00 per month to Rs. 1550.00 per month deserves sympathetic consideration on the part of the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with said observation. No order as to costs.” 6. This judgment was challenged by the one of the petitioners in special appeal being SPA No. 37 of 2004 (decided on 14.09.2004), which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of the same reads, as under:- “The learned Single Judge found that the petitioners were the class by themselves in as much as their job was extremely casual in nature. They were part-time Fitters and they were engaged for one scheme and chosen from the village, where the scheme ran. They were also at liberty to carry out other jobs simultaneously and their only job was to report to the Department if there was any dislocation of any pipeline noticed by them. It was also noted by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition that the petitioners did not have any conclusion regarding their suitability or educational qualifications etc. There was no age-limit also. It was on that basis that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioners could not claim a right on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. In fact, there was a clear-cut finding given by the learned Single Judge that there was no equal work also. The learned Single Judge has also taken into account the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in writ petition No. 26910 of 1992, which was identical in facts and which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We have also heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the respondents, who has supported the judgment and pointed out that not only was the similar controversy dismissed in Allahabad High Court, but, there was a labour dispute raised for this, which also resulted against the petitioners. In that view, we are of the opinion that this special appeal has no merits and it is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs. ” 7. In that view, we are of the opinion that this special appeal has no merits and it is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs. ” 7. Perused the above two judgments of this Court on which the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan has relied. The facts stated in the above judgments are absolutely similar to the present petitioners. The petitioners in the above stated case were also seeking their regularization, which has been turned down by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Divison Bench also upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court. 8. The present matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court. Moreover, after the decision of Uma Devi (supra), in any case, no interference can be made in the present case. 9. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 10. Having made the above determination, however, since the amount of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month is being given to the petitioners till date as remuneration, under the present circumstances it appears to be on the lower side. The petitioners would be at liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned and once such a representation is made before the authority concerned, the authority shall look into this aspect and consider the case of the petitioners for increasing their remuneration, subject to the availability of funds and other considerations.