Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 874

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Sujit Kumar Singha And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 4431 of 2008, WP(C) 1202 of 2013, WP(C) 4273 of 2016, WP(C) 1650 of 2013, WP(C) 7552 of 2013
Decided on : 25-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Mr. M. Dutta, Amicus Curie.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Nayak, SC, Finance Department, Mr. N. Upadhyay, SC, Irrigation Department and Mr. R. Dhar, SC, PWD.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 Supreme Court.

Headnote:
REGULARIZATION - Muster Roll Workers - State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1; Jitendra Kalita and Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors. 2006 (2) GLT 654; State of Assam vs. Upen Das & 835 others, WA No.45/2014 - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the regularization of muster roll workers, emphasizing the cabinet decision of 22.07.2005, which allowed for the regularization of workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993. However, it was determined that the regularization of the petitioners was conducted irregularly and without proper authority, leading to the cancellation of their regularization. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to established parameters for regularization and referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Uma Devi, which restricts the regularization of casual workers unless specific conditions are met. The court concluded that while the petitioners' grievances were valid, the impugned order banning further regularization was sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were muster roll workers in the Irrigation Department, sought the release of their regular and arrear salaries after their services were regularized in 2005. They claimed that their regularization was in accordance with a cabinet decision, but their salaries were stopped without explanation. The Finance Department later found their regularization to be unauthorized and cancelled it, leading to the present writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regularization of the petitioners was conducted irregularly and without proper authority, as the necessary parameters for regularization were not followed. The cancellation of their regularization was upheld, and the court noted that the petitioners were not entitled to salaries as they were no longer considered government employees.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization and payment of salaries after their regularization was cancelled by the Finance Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that regularization must adhere to established policies and parameters, as outlined in the cabinet decision and supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Uma Devi. The court emphasized that irregular appointments cannot be regularized without following due process, and the cancellation of the petitioners' regularization was valid.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in light of their grievances, which arose prior to the impugned order, within three months, but upheld the cancellation of their regularization and the ban on further regularization as per the existing legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department, Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, Public Works Department, for the respondents.

2. As the issues involved in this bunch of writ petitions are identical, the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The grievance raised by the petitioners in WP(C) 4431/2008 is for a direction to release the regular salary and arrear salary of the petitioners from the month of June, 2006.

4. The writ petitioners, six in numbers, are working as Grade-IV employees in Silchar Sub-Division, Cachar in the Irrigation Department since 22.07.2005 i.e. from the date of regularization of their services without any interruption. Prior to their regularization, they were working as muster roll workers from 1987 to 1992. The State cabinet vide communication dated 22.07.2005 has decided to regularize the services of the work-charged/muster roll workers of different Government Departments who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and are in continuous service without any interruption irrespective of their length of service.

5. Pursuant thereof, the Finance Department has concurred to the creation of 5892 numbers of different work-charged grade posts and 25069 numbers of different Grade-IV posts w.e.f. 22.07.2005 in the different Government Departments which was conveyed to all the departments of the State Government including the Irrigation Department, Govt. of Assam vide communication dated 22.08.2005. It is contended that the petitioners having been qualified to be appointed for the purpose of regularization of their services as they were working as muster roll workers duly engaged prior to 01.04.1993, the respondent authorities issued appointment orders to the petitioners on 06.10.2005 clearly mentioning the place of posting of the petitioners. It is stipulated in the appointment orders that the posts are personal to the incumbent concerned who are holding the post and will be abolished as soon as the concerned incumbent relinquished their post in any manner. On such appointment, the petitioners have joined against their respective posts and have been discharging their duties. The salaries of the petitioners were paid up to the month of May, 2006 and the salary of petitioner No.2 was paid up to May, 2008. During the payment of their salary their respective GPF amount were deposited in their respective GPF account. Thereafter, the respondent authority had failed to pay the salary to the petitioners without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved, the petitioners on several occasions approached the respondent authority for payment of their salary. But the respondent authority has failed to pay the salary to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

6. In WP(C)7552/2013, challenge is made to the impugned order dated 16.06.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department, whereby, inter alia, it is provided that no more regularization of service of work-charged, muster roll workers or similarly placed workers can be undertaken by the State Government, even if such workers were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and rendered continuous service without break, in view of the judgment and order passed by this Court pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnakta vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The petitioner prays for a direction to proceed with the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2013 and for a direction for correction of the anomalies towards regularization of the service of the petitioner for the purpose of release of monthly salary of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as muster roll worker on 01.11.1986 in the Irrigation Department. His service was regularised on 06.10.2005. Suddenly, the respondent authorities sto