Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1043 (GAU)

Yamin Tagru v. State Of A. P.

2025-06-16

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned Standing Counsel for the Horticulture Department representing respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the private respondents No.3 to 12. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the Speaking Order date 19.11.2016, passed by the Director of Horticulture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the claim of the petitioners for absorption or regularisation of their services in Group-D post in pursuant to the order of this court dated 28.09.2016, passed in WP(C) No.524(AP)/2016, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners are much junior and above them so many seniors are still awaited for absorption or regularization in the Department. 3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed on different dates ranging from 2001 to 2010 as contingency employees in the Department of Horticulture. It is contended that the petitioners have been continuously serving as contingency employees for 6(six) years to 15(fifteen) years. The respondent authorities have considered the case of the private respondents No.3 to 12, which according to the petitioners are junior to them. Some of the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.524(AP)/2016. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2016 by which it has directed the Director of Horticulture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to take on board, the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioners dated 15.07.2016 and pass speaking order thereon, in accordance with law. 4. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Horticulture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide impugned speaking order dated 19.11.2016 has rejected the claim of the petitioners having been found that the petitioners are not eligible to be absorbed in their services on regular basis as the petitioners are much junior and above them so many seniors are still awaited for absorption or regularisation in the Department. 5. Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners have been serving as contingency employees in the department for more than 20(twenty) years. The petitioner No.1, who was appointed on 12.03.2001 is senior to all the private respondents. 5. Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners have been serving as contingency employees in the department for more than 20(twenty) years. The petitioner No.1, who was appointed on 12.03.2001 is senior to all the private respondents. Therefore, he submits that respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioners while taking up the matter for absorption or regularisation as the law requires that all the similarly situated persons are to be considered by following the same yardstick. As such, he submits that respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation as has been done in the case of the private respondents. 6. Mr. T. Gyatso, learned Standing Counsel for the Horticulture Department, representing the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that except petitioner No.1, the other petitioners are junior to the private respondents. He, while drawing the attention of this Court to the Notification of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, for appointment of all the Group-C and Group-D post, the Head of the Department is empowered to be appointing authority, submits that, at the relevant point of time, there is no particular rule for appointment/absorption or regularisation of the contingency employee in the department. Accordingly, by following the general principle of appointment/regularisation, the cases of the private respondents were considered on the basis of the merit and seniority as well as the qualification and allowed to officiate. Subsequently, the services of some of the private respondents have been regularised. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged the subsequent regularisation orders of some of the private respondents, therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable, in view of the facts that the ground of challenge of the officiating appointment of the private respondents is only on seniority, whereas, except, the petitioner No.1, the other petitioners are junior to the private respondents. He further submits that there are so many seniors, whose cases are to be considered for appointment/regularisation first. And as and when the turn of the petitioners comes, their cases would be considered in accordance with the law. 7. Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the private respondents while endorsing the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Horticulture Department, submits that all the petitioners excepts the petitioner No.1, are junior to the private respondents. And as and when the turn of the petitioners comes, their cases would be considered in accordance with the law. 7. Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the private respondents while endorsing the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Horticulture Department, submits that all the petitioners excepts the petitioner No.1, are junior to the private respondents. He also submits that since the regularisation of some of the private respondents is not put to challenge, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as the claim for absorption or regularisation of the petitioners are only on seniority, which is not the correct position. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 9. The respondent authorities have failed to place on record on what basis the cases of the private respondents were considered for appointment on officiating basis and subsequently, regularized the services of some of the private respondents, except to say that the Director of Horticulture being the appointing authority, at the relevant point of time, had the power and authority to appoint the private respondents. It is seen that while the cases of the private respondents were considered, no effort has been made to consider all other similarly situated persons, including the petitioners herein. If the stand of the respondent authorities to the effect that the petitioners are much junior and there are so many seniors to be considered, the same has to be supported by the documents and it has to be considered in accordance with the rule. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel, that there is no specific rule to regulate the appointment of contingency employees in the post of Group-D, which cannot be accepted, inasmuch as once the post is sanctioned, there must be a rule or guidelines, and if not, minimum requirement of scheme of public employment has to be followed in any case. 10. It is stated at the bar that the petitioners are still continuing as contingency employees in the Department of Horticulture. The law on regularisation has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the same has been considered and clarified from time to time. It is stated at the bar that the petitioners are still continuing as contingency employees in the Department of Horticulture. The law on regularisation has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the same has been considered and clarified from time to time. At Para- 53 of the Umadevi (3) (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, which is reproduced herein under:- “...53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappall, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajans and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take e steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion f within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 11. Recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, which is reproduced herein under: “...25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. Recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, which is reproduced herein under: “...25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. · Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. · Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselvesexcluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. · Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcingroles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. · Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 12. Reverting back to the present case, having considered that the petitioners are still allowed to continue as contingency employee in the Department of Horticulture, it would be unfair and impermissible on the part of the respondent authority in the name of appointing authority allowed to adopt pick and choose policy to appoint their own choice of contingency employees, which would be totally illegally under the law. Thus, I am of the considered view that not only the petitioners, but all the similarly situated contingency employees of the department are entitled to be considered for regularisation, in accordance with law. 13. Thus, I am of the considered view that not only the petitioners, but all the similarly situated contingency employees of the department are entitled to be considered for regularisation, in accordance with law. 13. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioners as well as other contingency employees of the Department of Horticulture for regularisation of their services. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioners along with the other similarly situated persons for regularisation of their services, in accordance with law. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above. No order as to cost.