Back
2021 Supreme(Gau) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Pradip Kr. Das S/O Lt. Paritosh Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council Ors Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of Town And Country Planning And Social Welfare And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/4710 of 2015
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.C. Dey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Chutia, Ms. M. Kemprai, Standing Counsel
Point of Law: Ad hoc, temporary or casual employees -Right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Karbi Anglong District Act, 1954 – First Information Report – Employment and service – Jurisdiction - By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for directing respondent authorities to allow petitioner to do his duties as Tax Collector of Town Committee pursuant to resolution no. 4 of Town Committee and further direction to respondent authorities not to appoint any other person till disposal of writ petition and for setting aside order under Memo - Case projected in this writ petition is that petitioner was allowed to collect tax on behalf of Town Committee and a formal appointment letter as Tax Collector was issued –
Finding of the Court:
It leaves no room for doubt that practice of making adhoc appointments by instrumentalities of State has been strongly deprecated - Therefore taking note of stand taken by the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 2 and 3, grievance of petitioner and taking note of herein before referred observations made by Supreme Court of India Court is inclined to provide that having discontinued engagement of petitioner respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to forthwith refrain from engaging any other adhoc appointee to collect rent/ tax from building and other properties of Town Committee without making regular and proper recruitment - Writ petition is allowed to said limited extent - Rule is made absolute in terms of relief as allowed herein - In light of discussions above petitioner is not found to have any legal or constitutional right to continue to work as Tax Collector of Town Committee as such all other reliefs sought for by petitioner stands rejected - With respect why should the State be allowed to depart from normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts - Court in court view is bound to insist on State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to persistent transgression of rules of regular recruitment –
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, assisted by Ms. M. Kemprai, both being learned standing counsel for Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, respondent nos. 1 to 3. None appears for respondent no.4.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to do his duties as Tax Collector of Bakalia Town Committee pursuant to resolution no. 4 of Bakalia Town Committee dated 30.08.2013, and further direction to the respondent authorities not to appoint any other person till disposal of the writ petition, and for setting aside the order under Memo no. BTC/Audit/Pt-1/83/2010/ 1239(A) dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure-H).
3. The case projected in this writ petition is that in the year 2008 the petitioner was allowed to collect tax on behalf of Bakalia Town Committee and a formal appointment letter as Tax Collector was issued on 17.06.2009. Although the respondent authorities found the accounts submitted by the petitioner to be correct, but the audit conducted by the Office of the Accountant General of Assam for year ending 31.03.2010, found that a sum of Rs.79,721/-was not deposited in the accounts of the Govt. of Assam. It is projected that four member Sub-Committee of Bakalia Town Committee had made enquiry, verified the accounts and submitted their report to the Chairman on 29.07.2013. The said report was discussed in the meeting of Bakalia Town Committee held on 30.08.2013 and allowed the petitioner to continue in service by depositing security amount of Rs.5,000/-. However, the respondent no.4 did not allow the petitioner to work as Tax Collector in terms of resolution dated 30.08.2013, as such, the petitioner had submitted his representation dated 26.09.2013. Thereafter, projecting that he had been threatened by respondent no.4, the petitioner had lodged an FIR on 26.09.2013 before the Officer-In-Charge of Bakalia P.S. Subsequently, the Director of Municipal Administration, Assam, vide letter dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure-G), informed the respondent no.3 about the objection raised during the audit of accounts of Bakalia Town Committee and that no compliance report was received regarding steps taken with respect to non-deposit of collection amounts to the Municipal Fund. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.11.2013, the respondent no. 3 wrote to the Director, Municipal Administration Department, Assam regarding action contemplated against the petitioner and by a copy of the said letter sent to the petitioner, he was asked to deposit entire amount within 15 days. The petitioner responded to the said letter by his reply dated 18.11.2013. Thereafter, as the petitioner was not allowed to work, the petitioner served his advocate’s notice on the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, it is alleged that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and that non-assignment of work to the petitioner amounted to dismissal from service without complying with principle of natural justice, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without conducting departmental enquiry, the respondent authorities could not have determined any amount recoverable from the petitioner. It is also submitted that not only the Bakalia Town Committee had verified the accounts submitted by the petitioner and in its meeting it was resolved that the accounts was correct, which was again ratified by a fact finding Sub-Committee of 4 Members, which had exonerated the petitioner and that by resolution dated 20.08.2013, the service of the petitioner was extended. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 had charged the petitioner of not depositing collection amount vide letter dated 11.11.2011 and, as such, the non-allotment of work to the petitioner amounted to punitive termination of petitioner from service. Accordingly, it is submitted that refusal to assign duty to the p
