Upen Das and 17 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, and Mr. Rajib Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶37

Page No.# 3/6

¶38

2. The petitioners, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶39

“ In the premises aforesaid, It is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule nisi calling upon the Respondents to show-cause as to why an appropriate direction shall not be issued in the form of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize/ adjust the services of the petitioners in the sanctioned vacancies lying vacant under the Directorate of Geology & Mining, Assam pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court subject to the result of the W.A. No. 45/2014. Further a writ of certiorari may be issued to setting aside and quashing the impugned Advertisement dated 20.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-Q) issued by the Respondent No. 2 and upon hearing the parties and perusal of the records of the case be pleased to pass such other or further order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

¶40

3. The petitioners, herein, by raising a similar grievance earlier, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)3086/2010.

¶41

The said writ petition along with other analogous matters, was considered and disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 20.12.2013, directing the State Respondents to initiate steps for regularization of the services of the petitioners involved in the said proceeding and for the said purpose, directions were set-out in paragraph No. 66 of the said order, dated 20.12.2013.

¶42

4. The State being aggrieved, had assailed the said order, dated 20.12.2013, by way of instituting a writ appeal being WA No. 45/2014[State of Assam & ors. v. Upen Das & ors.]. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 08.06.2017, was pleased to dispose of the said appeal by accepting the undertaking given by the State Respondents not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The Division Bench of this Court further noticed the decision of the State Government to enlist such employees in Health

¶43

Page No.# 4/6

¶44

and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme.

¶45

5. Having noticed the said decision of the State; the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 08.06.2017, proceeded to pass the following directions:

¶46

“ 22. It is, however, heartening to learn that the State Government has agreed not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The State Government has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken a s welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question. We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not i n sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017.

¶47

23. For these reasons, we are of the view that in the fact situation of the case, Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and Casual workers are not entitled for regularization of their services with consequential benefits, such as, pension etc. We, accordingly, subject to our direction in paragraph 22 of the judgment, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.1 2.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.”

¶48

6. During the pendency of the said writ appeal being WA No. 45/2014, the present writ petition was instituted by the petitioners, praying for regularization of their services. However, the prayer made in the writ petition as extracted hereinabove, would go to reveal that such prayer for regularization was so made subject to the result of the proceedings in WA No. 45/2014.

¶49

7. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), in paragraph No. 22, that the said directions were so limited to the persons not working in sanctioned posts; has contended that the petitioners, herein, were working in sanctioned posts in the Directorate of Geology & Mining,

¶50

Page No.# 5/6

¶51

Government of Assam, and accordingly, the directions laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), would not be applicable to the petitioners, herein.

¶52

8. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel, has further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts, they would be entitled to have their services regularized in terms of the policy decision adopted in this connection by the State Government.

¶53

9. On a query made by this Court to Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, to demonstrate as to how the contention that the petitioners were working against the sanctioned posts, have been so made; the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any basis for such contentions raised in the matter.

¶54

10. Be that as it may, the same very petitioners being also involved in the proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 45/2014 and the same having held that the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charged Workers and Casual Workers are not entitled to regularization of their services with consequential benefits such as pension; the said direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court still holding the field, it is not open for this Court to take a different view in the matter.

¶55

11. Further, as noticed hereinabove, the petitioners, herein, have also failed to demonstrate that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), would not be attracted to them and they would be entitled to have their cases considered for regularization.

¶56

12. It is to be noted that the benefits extended by the Division Bench of this

¶57

Page No.# 6/6

¶58

Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), is being received by the petitioners, herein.

¶59

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), would stand squarely attracted to the case of the petitioners, herein, and they would not be entitled to any other benefit other than that extended by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra).

¶60

14. In the above view of the matter; the instant writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Comparing Assistant

Upen Das and 17 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upen Das and 17 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prosenjit Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Barnali Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mintu Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 5 Others

Animesh Mishra and 37 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Lumding Municipal Board Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.