JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1.Appellant has assailed the judgement and order dated July 26, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 271 of 2021 with IA CAN 1 of 2022.

2. By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to ensure that wages are paid to the respondents herein, commensurate with the rate as specified in the office memorandum dated June 7, 1988. Learned Single Judge has also directed the authorities to consider the possibility of regularizing the respondents in their post with the Zilla Parishad. The authorities have been directed not to disengage or discontinue the services of the respondent except on valid grounds and without giving sufficient notice to the respondents.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has referred to the prayers made in the writ petition. He has contended that, the office memorandum dated June 7, 1988 would show that the benefit was available only to casual workers doing the same nature of work as regular employees. He has contended that, the writ petitioners were not performing any work as regular employees. Writ petitioners have not placed any evidence to such effect. He has relied upon 2017 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 148 (State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others) in such context.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the respondents were engaged as casual workers for carrying out certain works against a contingency fund which exhausted on October 1, 2021. The respondents had been appointed on a muster roll which was issued in advance every month. The respondents have not been appointed against any contract or letter of appointment. The respondents have not performed any work after October 2021. They had not been engaged after October 2021. They did not produce any evidence of performance of any work or having received any payment subsequent to October 2021.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the writ petitioners were engaged for seasonal and temporary work in respect of specific projects and that, their nature of work was not of permanent nature.

6. Referring to the minutes of the meeting dated July 5, 2018 of the General Body of the Zilla Parishad, Northern Middle Andaman, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, such minutes do not contain any decision and that the same was mainly a tool for collective bargaining at the level of the administration, at best.

7. Referring to the provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayat) Regulation, 1994 and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1997 learned advocate appearing for the Administration has contended that, Zilla Parishad does not have any power to appoint any employee. Such power of appointment is with the Lieutenant Governor. Administration through the Lieutenant Governor has deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the Zilla Parishad.

8. Learned advocate for the Administration has relied upon two decisions of the Division Bench rendered on January 12, 2011 in MAT 001 of 2011 and February 27, 2009 in MAT 030 of 2008 to the effect that Lieutenant Governor cannot exercise administrative control in matters regarding appointment or removal of employees at the Zilla Parishad which have been held to be erroneous by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated March 9, 2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 82255-8257/2009.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the resolution of the Zilla Parishad was merely recommendary in nature, never acted upon and consequently cannot assist the respondents. Such minutes have no legal strength and sanction in the eyes of law. The Administration has never approved the appointment of the respondents or given any post sanction to the request mentioned in the minutes.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgement and order should be set asid