Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 1140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.
Aloke Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
Indian Statistical Institute And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 692 of 2022
Decided On : 14-01-2022
Raghunath Chakraborty, Advocate, Tanusree Das, Advocate, Debapriya Gupta, Advocate
The autonomy of an autonomous body and the rights of contractual workers cannot be disregarded without their consent, and decisions affecting their employment must be made in a reasonable and fair manner.
Headnote:
Autonomous Body - Contractual Employees - Indian Statistical Institute - 25.11.2016 - The court discussed the decision of the outsourcing committee dated 25th November, 2016, which allowed the extension of contract for contractual workers till the age of 59 if they are physically fit. The court emphasized that a benefit granted to the contractual workers by a committee of the autonomous body cannot be changed to the detriment of the workers without their consent. The court also highlighted the autonomy of the institution and the unreasonable decision to outsource the job for which the petitioners were engaged. The court set aside the resolution to procure services from a government contractor and directed the ISI to consider giving permanent employee status to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, gardeners of Indian Statistical Institute, were appointed as contractual employees through a recruitment procedure. The outsourcing committee decided to extend their contract till the age of 59 if they are physically fit. However, the ISI later decided to send the petitioners to a government contractor for one year service, which the court found prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the decision to outsource the job for which the petitioners were engaged to be wholly unreasonable and emphasized the autonomy of the institution. The court set aside the resolution to procure services from a government contractor and directed the ISI to consider giving permanent employee status to the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the change in the recruitment policy for contractual workers, the autonomy of the institution, and the decision to outsource the job for which the petitioners were engaged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a benefit granted to the contractual workers by a committee of the autonomous body cannot be changed to the detriment of the workers without their consent. The court also highlighted the autonomy of the institution and the unreasonable decision to outsource the job for which the petitioners were engaged.
Final Decision: The court set aside the resolution to procure services from a government contractor and directed the ISI to consider giving permanent employee status to the petitioners. The writ application was allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
abhijit Gangopadhyay, J. - The petitioners are the gardeners of Indian Statistical Institute (for short 'ISI') who started working as contractual employees in ISI from 2013.They were appointed through a recruitment procedure for which advertisement was published in news paper. (vide page 25 a of the writ application) From the documents it has been shown to me that in a meeting of the outsourcing committee dated 25th November, 2016 the recruitment policy was changed after going through the views of CaG and legal views taken by ISI that the extension (of contract) may continue till they attain the age of 59 years if they are physically fit and medical test will be essential for that purpose. It is not at all the case of the respondents including the Government that after this decision dated 25.11.2016 there is such change of circumstances whereby this decision of the outsourcing committee taken on 25th November, 2015 is required to be changed and the petitioners can be sent under some contractor for the same job as has been decided now as shown to me by the respondents to one Government labour contractor namely Kalpataru Enterprise for one year. against 59 years of age as was decided by the outsourcing committee the petitioners are giving job for 1(one) year service period. This is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. a benefit granted to the contractual workers by a committee of the autonomous body can never be changed to the detriment of the beneficiary workers that too without taking their consent. This is wholly illegal. Every citizen of this country has a status and prestige as human being as guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution of India and their life and prestige as a human being cannot be dealt with by some powerful persons like pawns.
The documents in respect of sending of the persons for contractual service under Kalpataru Enterprise instead of ISI are kept on record.
2. No prayer for filing affidavit-in-opposition has been made by the respondents and the matter is heard in extenso.
3. The minutes of the meeting of the ISI council dated 03.01.2022 in respect of considering the matter relating to engagement of contractual manpower shows that some Government officers are making comments in respect of running of an autonomous institution as if from a higher pedestal without giving any reason for their comments. Therefore, I do no know what is the reason when it has been stated by the Chairman that when the question as to contractual employee was sent to Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation representative who clearly said that continuation of employment on contractual basis period after period is not correct( vide page 148 of the writ application).
Why it is not correct if the autonomous body decides that?
again in page 148 of the writ application it appears that one Government officer has stated that continuation of contractual appointment in the way it has been done cannot be supported by the Government.
Why it cannot supported? What is the reason? Cannot the autonomous body have its own say and decisions in the matter?
There is no answer.
again it appears from page 148 of the writ application that if there are no regular posts and the services are required the services should be outsourced.
Why the services should be outsourced? What is the reason? Where is the financial involvement and analysis? Is expenditure the only guiding factor in such cases? Service of human beings under a protective umbrella of an autonomous body has no value to a welfare state? and what will happen to the already taken decision of continuation of the contractual employee till 59 years? When this decision has been overruled? Why this decision of the said committee of the autonomous body will not be respected?
There is no answer.
4. The minutes of the meeting dated 3rd January, 2022 and the decision taken in the meeting as to outsourcing the job for which the petitioners were engaged is wholly unreasonable.
