Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
Shri Biswanath Nath and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Meghalaya and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 457 of 2018
Decided On : 28-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Workmen - Arrears of wages - Regularization - Prayer for direction to Respondents to regularize services of Petitioners within fifteen days of date of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and to pay salary of last six months with immediate effect - Petitioners who were working as M/R Labourers in Public Works Department (PWD), Government came to know of a letter written by Sub Divisional Officer to Sectional Officer, wherein inter-alia, it was instructed that with effect from 01.12.1988, total number of M/R Labourers in said Store shall be 22(twenty two) in numbers and no extra labour to be entertained w.e.f. 01.12.1988 - This accordingly prompted them to approach Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition which was numbered as Civil Rule and High Court vide said judgment and order has directed respondents to prepare within 31.02.1991 a scheme on rational basis for absorption as far as possible, of petitioners who have been working continuously for more than one year in department and further that arrears of wages payable to any of petitioners be paid within two months from date of said judgment and order.
Finding of the Court:
Since the Petitioners have chosen to remain quite for a long time even for about 20(twenty) years or so, as it is, but natural to expect that having pursued the matter relentlessly during the initial years of litigation, if they are aggrieved by any action of the Respondents in this regard, they would surely have approached the courts at the earliest. The fact that they have approached this Court after a gap of almost more than 20(twenty) years or so, the contention of the learned AAG that there has been a conscious act of waiver, acquiescence, laches and delay on the part of the Petitioners which cannot be condoned by this Court has relevance. No case has been made out in his favour as he is a latecomer to the case and there is no cause of action as far as his employment is concerned.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
W. DIENGDOH, J.
1. The case of the Petitioners herein as could be understood from the averments made in this writ petition is but a continuation of a process which has started in the year 1989 which has its genesis in the judgment and order dated 03.07.1990 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1186/1989 in the case of Shri Matilal Bhattacharyya and Others vs. State of Meghalaya and Another and which order is annexed as Annexure -3 of this instant petition.
2. The Petitioners herein, being six in numbers, one of them, Putul Ch. Sarma is said to have expired on 21.10.2013, (his son, Shri Hiren Sarma is one of the Petitioners herein having been engaged as a Muster Roll (MR) Labourer in place of his deceased father on 12.12.2013), are amongst the original Petitioners in the said Civil Rule No. 1186/1989.
3. The Petitioners who were working as M/R Labourers in the Public Works Department(PWD), Government of Meghalaya came to know of a letter No. 3/ST/87-88/2599 dated 19.11.1989 written by the Sub Divisional Officer, PWD(R&B) Store, Sub Division Shillong to the Sectional Officer, PWD, Central Store, Zoo Road, Guahati wherein inter alia, it was instructed that with effect from 01.12.1988, the total number of M/R Labourers in the said Store shall be 22(twenty two) in numbers and no extra labour to be entertained w.e.f. 01.12.1988. This accordingly prompted them to approach the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition which was numbered as Civil Rule No. 1186/1989 and the High Court vide the said judgment and order dated 03.07.1990 has directed the respondents to prepare within 31.02.1991 a scheme on rational basis for absorption as far as possible, of the petitioners who have been working continuously for more than one year in the department and further that the arrears of wages payable to any of the petitioners be paid within two months from the date of the said judgment and order. Again, it was directed that the petitioners be provided with employment till the scheme for their absorption is prepared in any of the establishments in Assam and if the respondents do not provide the petitioners with work, the petitioners shall be paid Rs. 450/- per month from the said date, that is, 03.07.1990 till the scheme is framed.
4. The State of Meghalaya went on appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the said Order dated 03.07.1990 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.08.1991 in Civil Appeal No. 13623/1991 has disposed of the appeal, holding as under:
5. The Petitioners have also brought on record the letter No. GENL.ESTT/91-92/1/ PT-II/2923-33 dated 19.08.1991 wherein the Executive Engineer, PWD(Roads), Shillong Central Division, Shillong have made an offer to the Petitioners to join duty as Muster Roll Labourers for the maintenance of a road from Khanapara to Pilangkata on a daily wage of Rs. 25/- that is Rs. 750/- per month on all working days. This communication was purportedly issued as due compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 14.08.1991.
6. The Petitioners alleging that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been complied with have preferred a Contempt application before the High Court which was registered as Civil Org. Petition (Contempt) No. 76/1991 and the High Court vide order dated 20.01.1994 has directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners on regular basis at the pay
Workmen - Maintainability of Writ - There is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution ordinarily writ petition should be filed within a reasonable....
The High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters....
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
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 ....
Employees who have worked for a considerable period of time cannot be denied regularisation, as it would violate their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
