Point of Law: Upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety and in view of the findings arrived at herein above, the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance and accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S P Choudhury, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner briefly is that he was engaged as a driver under the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), North Eastern Region, Guwahati, Assam which is under the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India through an outsourced agency i.e. M/s Mahesh Travels, Guwahati. Thereafter, from 01.05.2009, he was working directly as driver under the NPTI without break. According to the petitioner, the NPTI also bought a Travera vehicle, sometime in the year 2008 to 2009 for the petitioner to drive.

3. While the petitioner was serving under the NPTI, an advertisement was floated in the Assam Tribune dated 22.09.2013 by the NPTI, inviting tender for providing man-power services on contract basis. Following the advertisement, a Memorandum dated 31.12.2013 was issued by the Assistant Director of NPTI wherein, it was indicated that the period of contract services of the petitioner as driver ended on 31.12.2013. It was further shown that the NPTI has awarded contract for supply of man-power including drivers to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, Beltola, Guwahati w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and that no further extension of contract service of the petitioner would be considered. However, as a good gesture, the NPTI had instructed M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise to engage the persons who were working earlier on contract basis with NPTI and that the petitioner may also avail such opportunity. In fact, the same was already conveyed to him during the meeting held on 23.12.2013 in the presence of M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise. Aggrieved with such action, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr. P.J. Phukan, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was serving as a driver on temporary basis under the NPTI since the year 2006 through a firm/agency and thereafter, directly under the NPTI since 01.05.2009. His engagement as such continued until the impugned memorandum dated 31.12.2013 was issued. By the said impugned memorandum, the service of the petitioner which was on temporary basis was shown as contract service. That without any prior notice, the service status of the petitioner from casual/temporary basis was unilaterally changed as a contract employment and therefore, the arbitrary action of the respondents should be interfered with by this Court by directing them to take back the petitioner into service and consider his regularization. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities:

(1) State of Haryana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 118

(2) Somesh Thapliyal vs. Vice Chancellor H.N.B. Garhwal University, (2021) 10 SCC 116

(3) Neha S/o Suresh Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2002 (3) GLT 108

(4) R.K. Angousana Singh vs. Sainik School Society and Others, 2006 (1) GLT 717

5. Appearing for the respondents Mr. S.P. Choudhury the learned counsel, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on 19.03.2014 submits that the petitioner was not engaged by NPTI as driver since 2006. In fact, NPTI hired vehicles through M/s Mahesh Travels (B) Ltd. Guwahati and the petitioner was engaged by the said travel agency for driving the vehicles hired by NPTI along with many other drivers. No wages were paid to the petitioner directly and that hire charges were paid to the travel agency. Subsequently, the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis w.e.f. 01.05.2009 for a period of 3 months initially vide Office Memorandum dated 27.04.2009 and thereafter, his engagement period was extended for specific periods till 31.12.2013, when the last memorandum was issued. The petitioner was paid wages at the daily rate fixed by the Regional Labour Commissioner of Assam from time to time and that he was never employed nor appointed as a driver on regular basis by following Government procedures and against any vacancy. In fact, there are no regular pos