Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 286 (GAU)

STATE OF ASSAM v. SHYAM KAKATI

2018-02-15

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he has allowed respondents WP (C) No.5507/2015 with certain directions. 2. The appellants are essentially aggrieved with a direction against them to draw up 3-5 years plan for absorption of the respondents into the line departments of the State Government and thereafter to consider their case individually for such absorption within a stipulated period of 4 months. It is to be noted that this direction has been given by the learned Single Judge in terms of Clause 4.2 of the Guidelines of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) Administration which reads as under :- "4.2 - As a matter of policy, the DRDA should not have any permanent staff. Taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific periods has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and of motivating the staff. The objective of strengthening of DRDAs is to provide them with certain professional capacity and have a flexible-staffing pattern. To start with, DRDAs shall no longer be allowed to make any direct recruitment. In respect of the staff that is currently borne on the DRDA, the State Rural Development Department should immediately draw up a 3-5 year plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments." (Emphasis supplied) 3. The learned Single Judge has so directed on an understanding that the respondents are members of staff borne on the DRDA. 4. But the position is not as such. DRDA was constituted in 1980. It acts as the principal organ at the district level to oversee the implementation of different anti-poverty programmes and the schemes of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) are generally manned by Officers and employees recruited on deputation and DRDAs own staff. The Officers and employees in the professional categories could be either from different departments or from the Rural Development Department. The professional component of DRDA is relatively small. The personnel of the DRDA falls in three categories (i) DRDA borne staff (ii) DRDA Deputed staff and (iii) Casual/fixed pay staff as per the requirement of each DRDA. Also, as per DRDA Guidelines, for 27 DRDAs of Assam, the authorized staff strength is 1135. It includes 556 nos. DRDA borne officers and staff, 400 nos. The personnel of the DRDA falls in three categories (i) DRDA borne staff (ii) DRDA Deputed staff and (iii) Casual/fixed pay staff as per the requirement of each DRDA. Also, as per DRDA Guidelines, for 27 DRDAs of Assam, the authorized staff strength is 1135. It includes 556 nos. DRDA borne officers and staff, 400 nos. deputed officers and 144 nos. casual/fixed pay staff. The respondents admittedly fall in the third category i.e. casual/fixed pay staff as per the requirement of DRDA. They are also not working against sanctioned posts nor they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement or any selection process. Clause 4.2 of the guidelines is therefore not applicable to them as they are not staff borne on the DRDA. Hence, the impugned direction of the learned Single Judge against the appellants to absorb the respondents in terms of Clause 4.2 is apparently unjustified and cannot be sustained. We accordingly quash the same. 5. We are, however, informed by the appellants that they have agreed not to terminate the respondents, who are working since many decades till their normal retirement except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The appellants have also agreed to enlist the respondents in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the appellants taken as welfare measures for the betterment and security of the respondents. We accordingly direct the appellants to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 , also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to the respondents. 6. Subject to our directions in paragraph 5 of the judgment, we allow the appeal and the impugned order stands modified to the above extent.