HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
JOBATI MARAK - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. - Respondent
WP(C) / 7161 / 2019
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for regularization of service and enhancement of remuneration - Petitioner, a contingent worker, sought regularization under a notification requiring 10 years of service by 14.08.2015, which was not fulfilled - Notification considered a one-time measure and not applicable retrospectively. (Paras 9 - 12 )
(B) Regularization of service - Cannot be claimed as a matter of right based on notification; must meet preconditions established by Supreme Court in Umadevi case. (Paras 11 - 12 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioner appointed as a contingent worker in 2009, remuneration enhanced to Rs.9,000/- in 2018, but service not regularized as per the notification dated 31.08.2015.
Findings of Court:
The notification does not apply as the petitioner had not completed the required service duration by the stipulated date.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization under the notification and if the notification can be applied retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization cannot be claimed as a right; the notification was a one-time measure applicable only to those who met the 10-year requirement by the cut-off date.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was appointed as contingent Manual Worker (Peon) vide order dated 21.08.2009 at a fixed pay of Rs.1500/- and was posted in the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. The remuneration was enhanced from time to time and vide an order dated 04.06.2018, the pay was enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per month. Since, the service of the petitioner was not regularized and in the meantime, an Office Memorandum was issued on 31.08.2015, the petitioner was aggrieved and accordingly had filed the instant writ petition. It is also submitted that a recruitment process for regular employment was held in which the petitioner had participated but could not qualify.
3. The claim is mainly based on a notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the Registrar (Admin.)-cum-In Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati.
4. I have heard Shri Surajit Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri HK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.
5. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, had informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, on 05.09.2022 the petitioner was released from service by citing financial crunch. On the merits of the case, he has submitted that by working for a long period of time, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 31.08.2015. It has also been submitted that salaries for 23 months were not paid to the petitioner and a direction should be given to that effect. He has also submitted that the experience gathered by the petitioner should have been taken into consideration in the recruitment process which was not done.
6. Per contra, Shri H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court has submitted that though the claim is based on the Notification dated 31.08.2015, the same is not at all applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the notification contemplates 10 (ten) years of service as on 14.08.2015 and on the said date, the petitioner did not complete the requisite period of 10(ten) years of service. He has also highlighted the aspect that the notification contemplated one time exercise and the same cannot be applied at a subsequent stage.
7. Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has endorsed the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The rival contentions have been duly considered.
9. It is not in dispute that the claim for regularization of service is based on a Notification dated 31.08.2015. The relevant aspect of the said notification states as follows:
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.
Regularization of service cannot be claimed as a right; it is subject to meeting specific preconditions set by relevant notifications and judicial precedents.
Regularization of service cannot be claimed as a matter of right; specific conditions must be met as per applicable notifications.
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
Point of Law : Court that practice of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the service of the workmen even though they have completed eight years of service, amounts to unfair labour practi....
Court reaffirmed that failure to regularize an eligible employee's service constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
The court does not have the power to direct regularization and/or absorption in service unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The petitioner fail....
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.