Dismissed

Mithun Bhakta v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Aug 2021WP(C)/3608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former part-time sweeper, sought benefits under Upen Das ruling after ten years of service. Court held Article 226 jurisdiction ends where contractual appointment has lapsed and contracting via representation disposal is impermissible. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to extend contractual appointment and dispose of representation to grant employment refused. Petition dismissed.

Mithun Bhakta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010113862021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3608/2021

¶5

MITHUN BHAKTA

¶6

S/O- RANJIT BHAKTA, R/O- ASHRAM ROAD, WARD NO. 15, P.O. AND DIST.HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, LABOUR WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER ASSAM GOPINATH NAGAR GHY-16

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER HAILAKAND

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 06-08-2021

¶18

Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶19

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that he was engaged as a part time sweeper on 28.01.2006 by the respondent no.4 and he had served for more than 10 years upto 31.12.2016.

¶20

It is projected that having worked for more than 10 years, the petitioner became entitled for benefits, which had accrued to him on account of the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed by this Court in WA 45/2014 within [State of Assam Vs Upen Das & ors, (2017) 5 NEJ 553]. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was assured that in the month of January 2017, his service would be regularized.

¶21

It is submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Upen Das (supra), it was incumbent on the part of the State government to grant minimum wage/pay as per Fiscal Responsibility Budget Management Act, 2005 as the petitioner had served more than 10 years. It is also submitted that a representation dated 27.05.2021 was submitted to the respondent no.3 but the same has not been responded to. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the respondents disposes of the said representation, it is every likelihood that the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

petitioner would be given the same benefit as was granted pursuant to the case of Upen Das (supra).

¶24

The learned Government Advocate as well as the Standing counsel for the respondent no.2 has opposed this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is claiming that he was appointed as a part time sweeper w.e.f. February 2006 and he had worked as part time sweeper till 31.12.2016. Therefore, after 01.01.2017, the petitioner is no longer in service.

¶25

In the case of Upen Das (supra), this Court had held that respondents therein were muster roll workers, work charged workers and casual workers, and the said decision is not on authority on the point that even if when the service of a part time worker like the petitioner was discontinued w.e.f. 31.12.2016 he would also be entitled to the financial benefits which was granted on the facts of the said case to the persons who were still in service. The issue in the said case was not for re-engagement, of disengaged workmen.

¶26

The Court is of the considered opinion that a writ Court is entitled to judicially review the action of the State and determine whether or not there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness, or irrationality that would vitiate the State action. In the present case in hand, the contract of the petitioner’s part time engagement as sweeper came to an end on 31.12.2016. Under such circumstances, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the contractual appointment of the petitioner which has already lapsed.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

The other point which the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed is that the respondent no.3 i.e. the Labour Commissioner should dispose of the representation dated 27.05.2021. In the said context, the Court is of the considered opinion that when the period of part time contractual engagement had lapsed, the Court would not extend liberty to the State government officials any handle to give employment in the garb of disposing a representation, which is not a mode of getting employment. The said prayer is, therefore, refused.

¶29

Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Mithun Bhakta v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun Bhakta v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Promud Borgohain and 18 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Bhogeswar Das Vs the State of Assam

Shamez Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kasrul Alam Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Omprakash Meena (GS-198111A) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anup Malakar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.