Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1825
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Putul Basfore - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2906 of 2013
Decided On: 30-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.K. Barman, Adv.
For the Respondents: SC
Muster Roll workers are not entitled to regularization but are eligible for minimum pay and welfare benefits as per state policy.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Regularization of services - The petitioner sought regularization of her services after years of continuous employment on a Muster Roll basis. The court noted that while regularization may not be permissible, benefits similar to those granted in prior cases should be extended. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
(B) Employment Law - Muster Roll Workers - The court directed the State Government to implement welfare measures for Muster Roll workers, including minimum pay scale and insurance benefits, without terminating their services until retirement, except for disciplinary reasons. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner engaged in 1994 as a Muster Roll worker sought regularization of her services after years of employment, claiming discrimination due to inaction by authorities. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondent authorities to extend benefits similar to those provided in the Upen Das case, including minimum pay and arrears from 01.08.2017. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization of her services and the associated benefits. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while regularization was not permissible, the petitioner was entitled to benefits as per previous judgments, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of long-serving employees. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for benefits.
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate; and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has raised a grievance with regard to the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking up her case for regularization of her services in view of the continuous services being rendered by her under the Project Engineer, Guwahati Planetarium, Science Technology and Environment Department, Government of Assam.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in the year 1993, was engaged for doing Grade-IV works on Muster Roll basis under the respondent No. 7. The petitioner was initially being paid her remuneration on daily wage basis. The petitioner contends that given the necessity with regard to maintaining cleanliness in the said Planetarium, the respondent No. 7 had vide communication, dated 23.05.1994, required the Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner and other persons engaged on Muster Roll basis for regular appointment as and when regular posts are so created. The respondent No. 7, thereafter, vide communication, dated 20.09.1998, informed the Government of Assam in the Science Technology and Environment Department, that the date of joining of the petitioner, herein, was 06.04.1994. Thereafter, it is contended that the petitioner was being paid her remuneration as per the wages fixed as per the decision of the Government of Assam in this connection.
4. The petitioner, being in her services for such a long period of time and by contending that the nature of work as discharged by her to be perennial in nature, the petitioner had approached the authorities praying for regularization of her services and such prayer not having been favourably considered by the respondents; this present proceeding has been instituted by the petitioner, herein.
5. Although the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she was working in the establishment of respondent No. 7 since the year 1993, however, from the communications as brought on record, it is seen that the engagement of the petitioner on Muster Roll basis was w.e.f. 06.04.1994. The respondents have filed affidavits in the matter and therein, also had brought on record the fact that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the establishment of respondent No. 7 on 06.04.1994.
6. Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the materials brought on record, contends that the petitioner's case for regularization of her services in the establishment of the respondent No. 7 ought to have been given due consideration by the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities having not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services; the petitioner, herein, has been discriminated.
7. Mr. Barman, learned counsel, further contends that the present proceeding is limited to the prayer as made by the petitioner in the writ petition for regularization of her services.
8. On a consideration of the grievance as raised by the petitioner, it is seen that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, a direction for regularization of the services of the petitioner, may not be permissible to be so issued. However, it is to be noted that under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Upen Das reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493, had proceeded to hold in terms of the concession made in the matter by the State Government that Muster Roll, work charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) shall be not terminated from their services till their normal date of retirement, except on disciplinary ground, or, on ground of criminal o
