Back
2023 Supreme(Megh) 60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
SANJIB BANERJEE, C.J., B. BHATTACHARJEE, J.
Mithu B. Marak & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 27 of 2023 with WA No. 28 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2023
For the Appellants : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Rana.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Ms. R. Colney, GA.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Employment - Appeals against refusal for regularisation under Service Rules versus Regular Casual Workers Scheme - Claim for equal pay for equal work - Court upheld that temporary appointees under specified terms cannot demand regularisation solely based on tenure. The case was rejected as appellants accepted temporary roles without dispute. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 12, 18)
(B) Employment Rights - The court ruled that no specific right to regularisation was demonstrated. Sufficient evidence was required to establish claims of similarity in duties for equal pay, and shortcomings in their case led to dismissal of petitions. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were temporary peons employed since 2012, invoking rights for regularisation in service but were engaged under a scheme that primarily recognized casual workers with over ten years of service. They claimed exploitation despite receiving wage increases during their tenure.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of appeals was justified due to established awareness of temporary status and the absence of a demonstrable right to regularisation under existing rules. The decision highlights adherence to established employment norms and fairness in treatment under casual employment schemes.
Issues: The court addressed whether long service in temporary roles warranted regularisation and if equal pay could be claimed based on service duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that acceptance of temporary appointments with an understanding of their nature negated claims to conversion into regular positions solely due to the passage of time.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for regularization under service rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for equal treatment of temporary workers. (Para 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of the employment status of the appellants. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's dismissal of appeals with suggestions for compassion. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjib Banerjee, C.J.
These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order of August 14, 2023 passed on two sets of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The grievance carried by both sets of petitioners – the appellants herein – was two-fold. They claimed that by virtue of their long service, albeit as temporary peons in the Meghalaya (Civil) Secretariat, Shillong, they were entitled to be regularised under the Service Rules, 1986 rather than be considered under the Regular Casual Workers Scheme, 1996. The second limb of complaint was that the appellants herein had been exploited by the State in the sense that the appellants were required to do all duties as regular peons but were discriminated against and were not afforded either equal pay or equal benefits though doing the same work.
3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on January 20, 2012, seeking applications for temporary engagement as peons in the Meghalaya (Civil) Secretariat on payment of daily wages at rates fixed by the State government under the Minimum Wages Act from time to time for unskilled labour, the appellants applied. It is the case of the appellants that a proper examination was held following which the successful candidates were called for interviews. The appellants seek to establish that a thorough recruitment exercise, as in the usual course under the service rules, was conducted before the selection process to the temporary post was completed and no appointment was given without obtaining a police verification report.
4. However, what cannot be missed is that the advertisement was for temporary engagement as peons, the letter of appointment also provided that the appellants were temporarily engaged as peons and a lump-sum monthly amount was indicated as the pay.
5. The initial appointment was for a period of a year, but the appellants claim that the State continued to obtain the services of the appellants without issuing any subsequent letter or indicating the tenure or terms of the appellants’ further engagement. It is, however, the undeniable position that from a monthly payment of Rs.4000/- in the year 2012, the appellants received a payment of about Rs.15,000/- per month in the year 2022 when the appellants approached this Court.
6. The two immediate reasons for approaching this Court were the issuance of a circular or letter of January 5, 2021 to the effect that the appellants’ cases would be considered under the Regular Casual Workers Scheme, 1996, despite the appellants insisting that the appellants had made several representations for regularisation of their services and some kind of assurance may have been given by the appellants’ seniors that their cases would be considered favourably in such regard. The other matter that triggered off the appellants’ ire was the issuance of an advertisement on February 9, 2022 calling for applications for filling up different categories of Grade-IV posts in the Department.
7. According to the appellants, since the recruitment process in the appellants’ case was done as in any regular recruitment exercise by conducting a written examination and thereafter an interview and finally causing a police verification to be made before offering appointment to a person, there could be no doubt as to the integrity of the process. Thus, according to the appellants, their recruitment has to be seen to have been above board and in accordance with any regular recruitment exercise. Next, the appellants say that they were required to do the same work as the regular appointees or as would be expected of the regular appointees who may be engaged purs
