Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Karamjit Singh Son Of Late Praban Singh And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Department Of Housing And Urban Affairs and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/7586/2022, WP(C)/1989/2023, WP(C)/3263/2023
Decided On : 26-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. U K Nair, Mr B D Das, Shri MK Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. Devi Shri BD Das, Sr. Adv. Shri HK Das
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Shri S. Dutta, Sr. Adv. [SC-SMB] Shri P. Nayak, SC-H&UD Dept. Shri SP Choudhury, SC-AUWS&S Shri R. Borpujari, SC-Finance

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that employees working under a scheme without being appointed against sanctioned posts do not have a right to regularization, and emphasized the obligation of Urban Local Bodies to ensure timely salary payments to their employees.

Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - Regularization and Salary Payment - Assam Municipal Act, 1956; Article 243Y, 243X, 243W of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, particularly Sections 50, 54, 58, and 59, which outline the powers and responsibilities of municipalities regarding employment and financial management. The court interpreted these provisions to clarify that the responsibility for salary payments lies with the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and not the State Government. The court emphasized that the petitioners, while working under a scheme, do not have a right to regularization as they were not appointed against sanctioned posts. The decision highlighted the need for timely salary payments and the role of the State Government in providing financial assistance to ULBs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed under the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board (AUWS&S Board) in various capacities, sought regularization of their services and timely payment of salaries after the transfer of their employment to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) following a government order. They claimed to have worked for extended periods without regularization and faced delays in salary payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not employed against sanctioned posts and thus did not qualify for regularization. However, it recognized the need for timely salary payments and directed the ULBs to ensure the release of pending salaries while also considering financial assistance from the State Government.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services and whether they had a right to timely salary payments after the transfer of their employment to ULBs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization of services is contingent upon employment against sanctioned posts, which the petitioners did not fulfill. It also established that while the ULBs are responsible for salary payments, the State Government has a role in providing financial support to ensure these payments are made.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the ULBs to release pending salaries and ensure timely payments, while the State Government was directed to consider providing financial assistance to the ULBs.

JUDGMENT :

All these three writ petitions being connected with similar grievance and reliefs, those are taken together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The grievance, in gist is the issue regarding the monthly salaries of the petitioners and their regularization in service.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the cases are narrated briefly.

3. In writ petition WP(C)/7586/2022, there are 57 nos. of petitioners who were initially working under the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter AUWS&S Board) in various parts of the State. Similarly, in WP(C)/3263/2023, there are 22 nos. of petitioners working in similar capacity on work charged basis. The petitioners in WP(C)/1989/2023 are 34 in numbers who are also working as work charged Khalashi in the Barak Valley Division of the AUWS&S Board. The petitioners claim to have been working for a long period of time without their services being regularized. Vide a notification dated 21.06.2022 issued by the Housing and Urban Affairs Department, Government of Assam, the AUWS&S Board was to partially handover the running schemes to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and the concerned ULBs would bear the cost of electricity bill, chemical and maintenance bill of such schemes from the available fund under the 15th F.C. Tied Grant and AUWS&S Board would continue to operate and collect revenues until these schemes are fully handed over to the respective ULBs. The said order was passed pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of the State on 14.05.2022. The principal grievance of the petitioners is on the aspect of the payment of their regular salaries and also regularization of their services. In fact, in WP(C)/7586/2022 and 3263/2023, prayer has also been made for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 21.06.2022.

4. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/7586/2022 and 3263/2023 and Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri HK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/1989/2023. I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the Silchar Municipal Board; Shri P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Housing and Urban Development Department; Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Shri SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

5. Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the principal grievance was based on the apprehension that the aspect of salaries was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2022. He has submitted that after handing over of the running schemes to the ULBs, while the aspect of cost of electricity bill, chemical and maintenance bill were specifically mentioned in the said order, there was no mention regarding payment of salaries. The learned Senior Counsel has however submitted that the aspect of the salaries of the petitioners represented by him have been redressed to a certain extent as salaries have been paid. However, payment of such salaries is not being done regularly and in a timely manner. He submits that the petitioners having discharging their duties, payment of regular and timely salaries is their right.

6. On the aspect of regularization of the services of the petitioners, Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been rendering their services in work charged capacity for a long period of time. In absence of an order of regularization of their services, the said services remain at an uncertain stage, which would be more when the petitioners would attain the age of superannuation. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 -the Chief Engineer of the AUWS&S Board filed on 22.03.2023, the learned Senior Co