Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 100 (GAU)

Bhupendra Sinha v. State of Assam

2017-01-23

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Government Advocate, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 and Mr. A Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for Respondent No.7. 2. These 32 review petitioners were appointed as Support Staff in the Fast Track Courts, which were established under a Scheme. Their appointments were made in terms of the requirement of the Scheme. It is to be noted that initially the Fast Track Courts were established for 5 years, but they have been made to continue. The State Government also later vide Notification dated 29.9.2012 made 20 existing Fast Track Courts as regular courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges and created various posts for proper functioning of such courts. Since the petitioners were working as Support Staff in the Fast Track Courts, they filed WP(C) No.5153/2010 for regularisation of their services against the newly created posts, but the Division Bench of this High Court, vide order dated 20.12.2012, disagreed with them and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- “With the abolition of the said Scheme, the petitioners do not have any right, vested or otherwise, in law or equity, to claim appointments as against the said sanctioned posts. For making, therefore, the said 20 permanent Courts functional, the petitioners cannot be directed to be absorbed, as regular employees of the State Government, against the said sanctioned posts nor can the petitioner be directed to be appointed, on regular basis, against the said sanctioned posts in violation of the relevant recruitment rules holding the field. For making, therefore, the said 20 permanent Courts functional, the petitioners cannot be directed to be absorbed, as regular employees of the State Government, against the said sanctioned posts nor can the petitioner be directed to be appointed, on regular basis, against the said sanctioned posts in violation of the relevant recruitment rules holding the field. While, thus, no mandamus can be issued directing the State Government or any authority to either absorb the petitioners against the said sanctioned posts or appoint them afresh against the said sanctioned posts, which have been, as indicated above, sanctioned for making the said 20 Courts functional, it is hereby made clear that the petitioners may, subject to the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules, remain free to apply for appointments to the posts, which have been sanctioned by the State Government, and if they or any of them makes any application pursuant to the selection process, which may be resorted to, for filling up the said sanctioned posts, the cases of the petitioners shall be considered as the case of any other candidate provided that they are found, otherwise, eligible to participate in the selection process. Until the time the process of selection and regular appointments is completed as against the said sanctioned posts, the petitioners shall, however, be allowed to function on the same terms and conditions on the basis of which they have been functioning so far so that the Fast Track Courts, upon being made permanent, can remain functional. We make it clear that with the regular appointments, as against the said sanctioned posts, in consequence of the Fast Track Courts being made permanent, the directions given hereby to continue the present petitioners shall automatically stand rescinded. The authorities concerned shall take necessary steps and complete the process of making selection and appointments to the said sanctioned posts within a period of six months from today.” 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2012, the petitioners filed Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No.12560/2013 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 12.4.2013, but with a liberty to file review petition on a limited issue. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2012, the petitioners filed Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No.12560/2013 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 12.4.2013, but with a liberty to file review petition on a limited issue. The order dated 12.4.2013 of the Supreme Court reads as under:- “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the main prayer with regard to fixation of pay scale equivalent to the pay scale given to the regular employees has not been considered by the High Court. A perusal of the order of the High Court would indicate that the point was not raised. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we grant liberty to them to approach the High Court by way of a review petition. In view of the aforesaid observations, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a prayer to withdraw the present special leave petition with liberty to approach the High Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above.” 4. It is in this background, the petitioners have filed the present review petition. It is however to be noted that during its pendency except for 8 petitioners, the services of all the writ petitioners have been regularised on their selection and appointment against the sanctioned posts. The dispute therefore now remains only in respect to following 8 petitioners- i. Bhupendra Sinha, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, FTC-3 ii. Bikash Bora, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC iii. Prashanta Bora, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, FTC iv. Sandip Das, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, FTC v. Kumud Kalita, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Nagaon, FTC vi. Umesh Rabha, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, FTC vii. Kamal Baruah, Peon, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC viii. Padum Bharali, Driver, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC 5. And on 16.12.2016, for the amicable settlement of their dispute, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General made the following offer:- i. That their services will not be dispensed with (but for disciplinary action) till they attain the age of superannuation; ii. That they will be paid wages minimum of the regular pay scale; iii. That at the time of superannuation, they will be brought under Medical Insurance Scheme. That they will be paid wages minimum of the regular pay scale; iii. That at the time of superannuation, they will be brought under Medical Insurance Scheme. 6. The learned senior counsel, appearing for the above named 8 petitioners, has agreed to condition nos. (i) & (ii) of the offer of settlement. 7. We, therefore, having regard to the acceptance of condition nos. (i) & (ii) of the offer of settlement, direct the State Government as under:- That the services of 8 petitioners mentioned above will not be dispensed with (but for disciplinary action) by the State Government till they attain the age of superannuation and that they shall be paid minimum wages of the regular pay scale from March, 2017 onwards. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners however prayed that liberty be given to the petitioners for making a representation to the State Government for extending the benefit of pension to them and counting of their past services for computing the pensionary dues and also for grant of medical benefit during the period they are in service. To this prayer, the learned senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, has fairly agreed. 9. We, accordingly, direct that the petitioners shall be at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for extending the benefit of pension to them and counting of their past services for computing the pensionary dues and also for grant of medical benefit during the period they are in service. Needless to mention if such a representation is made within two months from today along with the copy of this order, the competent authority shall decide the same by a speaking order within a reasonable time, but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. 10. With the above directions, the review petition stands finally disposed of.