IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employees performing duties similar to regular employees are entitled to minimum wage parity, but cannot claim regularization unless their initial appointment complies with legal recruitment standards.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

1. Heard Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Govt. of Assam representing respondent No.2 and 5. Also heard Mr. J Handique learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus or any direction commanding the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner, who is working as Extra Writer in the Office of the Respondent No.6. on a daily wage basis.

3. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was engaged as an Extra Writer on a daily wage basis @ Rs.25/-per day by a competent authority on 15.09.2009 and since then, he has been working in the said position without any regularization inasmuch as, the petitioner is working against a sanctioned vacant post of Extra Writer and in the meantime, he has also been trained by the competent authorities. Accordingly, it is contended by Mr. Talukdar that there is a necessity of absorption of the petitioner against the sanctioned vacancy, the petitioner being a qualified and trained person.

4. Referring to different documents annexed with the writ petition , the affidavit in opposition and the reply filed by the petitioner, Mr. Talukdar contends that the respondent themselves had admitted that the petitioner’s engagement should be regularized and he was appointed in a situation, when the post of Extra Writer was vacant in the office of the Sub Register and huge works were pending and the said situation still continues.

5. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Ors reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be an illegal appointment as he was engaged in exigencies of administration and in the meantime, the petitioner has acquired knowledge and expertise in this regard and therefore, he has acquired the right of regularization.

6. Referring to paragraph 53 of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , Mr. Talukdar contends that petitioner is a duly qualified person and there is a sanctioned vacant post and the petitioner has continued to work for more than 10 years without any intervention of any courts or tribunal and he still continues to work and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization.

7. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in State of Karnataka Vs.M.L.Kesari reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 , the learned counsel contends that the petitioner is entitled for the regularization in the given facts of the present case. In this context Mr. Talukdar has also relied on the decision of the Tripura High Court in the case of Basudev Debnath Vs. Union of India in WP(C) No.1162/2018.

8. Mr. Talukdar also contends that he is entitled for scales of pay in terms of ratio laid down by the hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148.

9. Per contra, Mr. S Dutta learned counsel representing the Revenue Department contends that the petitioner has approached this court for the third time seeking similar relief, which was not granted to him by this court on earlier two occasions and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed in-limine.

10. On merit Mr. Dutta argues that in terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra), the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. According to Mr. Dutta, not only the appointment of the petitioner is illegal but it was a temporary engagement in exigencies of administration. The petitioner had also not completed 10 years of engagement on the date of passing of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Cour