IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Jadumoni Nath - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 7711 of 2016
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 & 16 - Prayed for Regularization of Services - Minimum Scale of Pay - Petitioners, who are working in Hospital have prayed for regularization of their services – None of writ petitioners have had service for 10 years or more. Para 15
Finding of the Court:
Most of petitioners have been engaged by Hospital Management Society and not by State Government, and only 5 out of 29 writ petitioners are being given fixed wages - Accordingly, this Court is of view that concerned Hospital Management Committee/State respondents will have to consider giving of minimum scale of pay to petitioners, provided they are still working in two Hospitals and are entitled to same - Consequently, petitioners are given liberty to submit individual representations to Superintendent of two Hospitals, with regard to their claim for payment of minimum scale of pay - Concerned Superintendent, being Member Secretary of concerned Hospital Management Committee, shall thereafter place same before appointing authority, who shall thereafter consider case of petitioners, with regard to payment of minimum scale of pay and make due payment, if they are entitled to same - Petitioners should submit their individual representations within three weeks from today - Thereafter, decision/s on petitioners’ representations should be made within a further period of 3 (three) months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and petitioners’ representations.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The 29 writ petitioners, who are working in different capacities in North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital and in Dhemaji Civil Hospital, have prayed for regularization of their services.
3. The petitioners’ case in brief is that they are ward boys/ward girls casual helper/helper/Grade-IV employees (contractual) in North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital and in Dhemaji Civil Hospital. The grievances of the petitioners are that despite working for more than 10 to 20 years, their services were not regularized. Accordingly, they had prayed to this Court for regularization of their services, within a specified time frame.
4. This Court had dismissed the above case on the ground that the petitioners being contractual workers, they were not entitled to regularization, in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No. 45/2014 (State of Assam & Others Vs. Sh. Upen Das & 836 Others), wherein the Division Bench had held that Muster Roll Workers/Work Charged Workers and similarly placed employees were not entitled for regularization.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed W.A.No. 206/2018. W.A.No. 206/2018 was allowed by setting aside the Order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by holding that the learned Single Judge ought to have examined the matter in further detail, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others, reported in 2006 4 SCC 1, as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 45/2014 (State of Assam & Others Vs. Sh. Upen Das & 836 Others). The learned Division Bench held that the case of each of the appellants/writ petitioners deserved to be examined on the facts of each petitioner’s case, instead of generalizing that they were contractual employees and therefore, not entitled to regularization.
6. As such, the writ petitioners are before this Court once again. On considering the observations made by the Ld. Division Bench in WA No.206/2018, it appears that the writ petitioners should each file separate writ petitions, as the case of each petitioner has to be examined on the facts of each petitioner’s case. Be that as it may, the cases of each petitioner is being considered, keeping in view the starting point of their employment on contractual, temporary and on honorary basis.
7. There are 29 writ petitioners in this case and they have been apparently employed in different capacities on contractual/temporary basis. Out of the 29 writ petitioners, only the petitioner Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25 & 26 have annexed appointment orders, showing that they have been engaged temporarily or on contractual basis, to work in Dhemaji Civil Hospital at a fixed rate. Petitioner Nos. 21 & 22 have been engaged at a fixed rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, while the contractual appointment of the petitioner Nos. 23, 25 & 26 is fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month.
8. All are the petitioners except for petitioner Nos. 4, 6, 27 & 28 have annexed certificates, showing that they have been engaged in various capacities as contractual workers. There is nothing in the certificates annexed to show from which date they have been engaged on contractual basis and the monthly remuneration/wages to be given to them. The petitioner Nos. 4, 6, 27 & 28 have not annexed any certificate or any appointment order, to show under what capacity they have been working, in either the North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital or in the Dhemaji Civil Hospital. There is no averment made in the writ petition that the petitioners were appointed to their posts in pursuance to any advertisement or that they had the necessary qualification to hold the posts they were engaged in.
9. The dates from which the petitioners have been working in the North Lakhimpur and Dhemaji Civil
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others
Temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage employees do not have a legal right to be made permanent, unless they have been appointed in terms of relevant Rules or in adherence to Article 14 & 16 of....
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
The court established that long-term service and existing vacancies can warrant regularization, even if initial appointments were irregular, provided the employees meet certain criteria.
The regularization of muster roll workers must comply with established policies and legal standards, and irregular appointments cannot be regularized without following due process as mandated by the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.