Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 992 (GAU)

Kekyem Lego, S/O Shri Akek Lego v. State of AP

2025-06-10

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mukbom Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. These 2 (two) writ petitions have been instituted by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC in short), in the Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and for payment of minimum scale of pay of LDC along with Dearness Allowance. 3. As the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar and inter-related, same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgement and order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as contingency LDC (Skilled), on a monthly wage of Rs. 9,930/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty) vide an order dated 08.08.1997, issued by the Director of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, against a sanctioned post. The petitioner has been serving as contingency Skilled LDC for nearly 28 (Twenty-Eight) years, with his monthly wages enhanced from time to time. The petitioner is presently being paid Rs. 18,000/- (Eighteen Thousand) only as monthly wage. 5. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of the General Arunachal Pradesh Barber/Cook/Washer man/Cobbler Group ‘C’ (Non-Ministerial) Common Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2011, (The Rules of 2011 in short) submits that the 25% of the post of LDC shall be appointed from the serving Contingent Staff, who have put in a minimum of 20 (Twenty) years and more continuous service. The case of the petitioner has neither been considered nor his monthly wages has been provided with minimum pay scale despite the fact that the petitioner is serving continuously for more than 27 (Twenty-Seven) years since his initial appointment. 6. By referring to the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , Mr. 6. By referring to the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , Mr. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel submits that although the monthly wages has been enhanced from time to time, the petitioner has been denied of not only regularisation of his services as per the Rules but the respondent authorities have denied the minimum pay scale to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner considering the length of continuous service of nearly 28 (Twenty-Eight) years as a contingency LDC (Skilled) on a sanctioned post and also to pay the minimum pay scale to the petitioner. 7. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate while placing "The General Arunachal Service, Group - C (Ministerial) (Common) Lower Division Clerk/Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator Recruitment Rules, 2019" (The Rules of 2019, in short), submits that as per the provisions of the said Rules, in case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/ transfer, 15% of the vacancies of LDC shall be filled up from amongst the Skilled Contingency Staff with minimum 12 (Twelve) years of continuous service as a Skilled Contingency in the Department and possess Educational Qualification of Class-XII pass certificate from a recognized Board or Institution. Therefore, as the petitioner claims to have been serving for more than 27 (Twenty-Seven) years, his case can be considered as per provision of the Rules of 2019. 8. So far as the claim of minimum pay scale is concerned, while placing the copy of the order dated 19.03.2025, issued by the Commissioner (Finance), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits the minimum rate of wages in respect of various categories of Un- Skilled and Skilled contingent employees/ casual workers etc. under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has been enhanced. The monthly wages of Skilled contingent employees, who had put in above 25 (Twenty-Five) years’ of service, would be entitled to Rs. 31,000/- (Thirty One Thousand) per month. Accordingly, the petitioner, should approach the competent authority for payment of his wages in terms of the said order. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, including the relevant Rules. 10. 31,000/- (Thirty One Thousand) per month. Accordingly, the petitioner, should approach the competent authority for payment of his wages in terms of the said order. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, including the relevant Rules. 10. Perusal of the Rules of 2011, shows that 75% of Group-‘C’, Non-Ministerial post, shall be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% shall be appointed from the serving contingent staff, who have put in a minimum of 20 (Twenty) years and more continuous service. The latest Rule, namely, The General Arunachal Service, Group-C (Ministerial) (Common) Lower Division Clerk/Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator Recruitment Rules, 2019, however, provides that in case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, 15% of the vacancies of LDC shall be filled up from amongst the Skilled Contingency Staff with minimum 12 (Twelve) years of continuous service as a Skilled Contingency in the Department and possess Educational Qualification of Class-XII pass certificate from a recognized Board or Institution. 11. It is also placed on record, which this Court has taken note of, vide an order dated 19.03.2025, issued by the Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the minimum rate of wages in respect of various categories of Un-Skilled and Skilled contingent employees/casual workers etc. have been enhanced, which, inter alia, shows that the skilled contingent employees, who have put in above 25 (Twenty-Five) years’ service, will be entitled to Rs. 31,000/- (Thirty-One Thousand) per month. 12. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as a contingency LDC (Skilled) on 08.08.1997 and he is continuously serving since then, without any consideration for regularisation or payment of the minimum scale of pay, which the petitioner is entitled to. It is reflected clearly that the petitioner has been appointed against a sanctioned post, vide Government Order Number TPT/(B)32/95, dated 30.06.1997. 13. In the case of Uma Devi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, which is reproduced hereinunder: “...53. One aspect needs to be clarified. It is reflected clearly that the petitioner has been appointed against a sanctioned post, vide Government Order Number TPT/(B)32/95, dated 30.06.1997. 13. In the case of Uma Devi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, which is reproduced hereinunder: “...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. Nanjundappa12 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.” 14. In Jagjit Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities and certainly not in a welfare State. Accordingly, it has been held that all the temporary employees (in the above case) would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. 15. Accordingly, it has been held that all the temporary employees (in the above case) would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently, in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , has held, which is reproduced hereinunder: “...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 themselves excluded 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 outsourcing roles 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. 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.” 16. In the present case, having considered the provisions of the Recruitment Rules (supra) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered first under the Rules of 2011, as the petitioner had completed 20 (Twenty) years of service in the year 2017, before coming into force of the Rules of 2019. If not under the Rules of 2011, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered as per the Rules of 2019 as undisputably, the case of the petitioner has not been considered under either of the 2 (two) Rules, which the petitioner is entitled to. 17. Regard being had to payment of minimum scale of pay, since the Government has issued an order on 19.03.2025, enhancing the minimum rates of wages, inter alia, providing that the skilled contingent employees who has put more than 25 (Twenty-Five) years of continuous service will be entitled to Rs. 31,000/- (Thirty-One Thousand) per month, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should approach the respondent authorities for payment of his monthly wages in terms of the order dated 19.03.2025, from the date of coming into force of the said order, if not already paid. 18. In view of the discussion made herein above and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation of his service. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service in the post of LDC, in accordance with the Rules, taking into account of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner shall approach the respondent authorities for payment of his monthly wages in terms of the order dated 19.03.2025 and the respondent authorities shall pay the monthly wages to the petitioner from the date of coming into force of the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2025, if not already paid. 19. The writ petitions stand disposed of, in terms of the above. Cost(s) made easy.