All Manipur Forest Department Employees'' Association vs Principal, Chief Conservator and Others

N. Surjamani Singh, J.—Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, it appears to me that the present writ Petitioner, namely "All Manipur Forest Department Employees Association and Workers Union sought for enforcement of the fundamental and other legal rights of a considerable number of lowly paid daily wage earners, namely casual employees or workers of certain categories like casual Khalasi, saw operators, casual peons, casual mali, casual animal attendants, casual chowkidar, casual LDC, casual animal watchers and casual forest guards working under the Forest Deptt., Govt. of Manipur, numbering 71 (seventy one) initially and later on Anr. 29 (twenty nine) more employees/workers listed in Annexure A/1 (1) to A/1 (13) to the writ petition and, for a direction to the Respondents to regularise the employment or the absorption in regular services in respect of the deserving aggrieved employees/workers of the Forest Deptt. after making feasible scheme or otherwise.

According to the writ Petitioner, 71 + 29 =100 casual employees/workers are all qualified and eligible for regular appointment to corresponding substantive and temporary posts in the Forest Deptt., Govt. of Manipur who have been serving for a long period ranging from 15 years to not less than 3 years now as reflected in the document marked Annexure A/ 1(1) to A/l(l 3) to the writ petition. The date of their initial appointment/employment has been based on the orders of such appointment/ employment issued by the competent authorities of the Forest Deptt.. The writ petition is being field by the Petitioner/Union which is a Trade Union formed by the employees and workers of the Forest Deptt., Govt. of Manipur and registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and affiliated to the Hind Mazdpor Kisan Panchayat, Bombay in order to ventilate the grievances of the aforesaid employees/workers. These daily rated employees/workers are employed in the Forest Deptt. to tackle the ever-increasing works and ever expanding schemes, plans and programmes of development taken up by the Department and State Govt. in the fields of conservation of forests, afforestation, protection of the flora and fauna, besides extradition of forest produces. Tremendous importance and high priority for development of forest wealth have now been given by the nation as a whole and the need for man-power to work at the grass-roots of the official hierarchy has increasingly been felt to implement various programmes of such devolvement and to achieve the avowed object of the Nation in general and of the State of Manipur in particular.

It is also the case of the writ Petitioner that, although these daily wage earners have been in service/employment for more than 3 years in some cases, for more than 15 years in some other cases, they have not yet been absorbed on regular basis in the Department despite their legitimate demands and schemes in this behalf nor is there till now any beneficial scheme of the Department for the absorption and regularisation of the services of those employees. In the other Departments like PWD and others, where numerous casual workers and daily rated employees are in service for a number of years, appropriate arrangement have already been made and taken up either, suo moto or on the direction given by this Court for their absorption or regularisation of such workers/employees who are similarly situated with the present employees/workers of the Forest Deptt., on whose behalf and for whose benefit this writ petition is being filed.

According to the writ Petitioner, invidious discrimination and unequal treatment have been meted out by the Respondents to the employees/workers of the Forest Deptt. in the matter of public employment and these employees/ workers are paid such small amount of daily wages as are not comparable with the emoluments enjoyed by their counterparts employed on regular basis in the Forest Deptt.. The former lead miserable lives living from hand to mouth. In the year 1994, a memorandum of understanding dated 3.10.94 was signed and executed, whereunders the Forest Deptt. conceded to some extend the demands of the Union for regularisation or absorption of those employees/workers who have long been in service as casual or daily rated hands and, for granting to them some other benefits including "equal pay for equal work".

The case of the writ Petitioner is contested by the Respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition and, contending inter-alia, that such workers/employees are hired on temporary/ casual/MR basis and regularisation of such employees/workers for menial and temporary piece meal works under the Deptt. will be quite expensive and it shall deprive all the other fellow-workers of a chance of earning their minimum requirement for livelihood. As per the sanctioned schemes approved by the Govt. of India/Govt. of Manipur also, there is no provision for paying more than the minimum wages prescribed by them. According to the Respondents, a good number of Malis are hired on casual/MR basis every year by the Deptt. for raising seedlings, plainting seedlings in the field and, if such Malis are to be paid equal pay like those of regular employees, the Department shall not be able to implement any of the development programmes as it cannot achieve more than 1 /4th of the work sanctioned and the nature of field work of the Department is entirely different from those of the Department like PHED and PWD etc. and cannot be put at par or cannot be equated with each other.

It is also the case of Respondents, that a similar petition being, Civil Rule No. 545 of 1993 is pending before this Court and as such, the present writ petition is superfluous and unnecessary.

At the very outset, Shri A. Nilmani Singh, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner/ Union submitted, that the Respondents are under a public duty of treating those aggrieved employees/workers equally with other similarly situated, as the former afforded service benefits of the workers and employees in the other Departments of the State Govt. in the matter of their employment under the Govt. and of paying equal pay for equal work to those aggrieved employees/workers. But the Respondents have failed or neglected to perform their public duty, in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and depriving them of their right of equality in the matter of public employment and the right to decent livelihood.

Supporting the case of the Petitioner, Shri A. Nilmani Singh, has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation, Appellant v. United Labour Union and Ors., Respondents, reported in 1997 (2) Supreme Today 165 and submitted that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would direct the Respondents to absorb these employees/workers and rather, this Court as sentinel in the qui vive is required to direct the appropriate authority to act in accordance with law and to formulate a scheme on rational basis for absorption of these employees/workers or regularisation of their services.

According to Shri A. Nilmani Singh, even though these employees/workers have no legal right for regularisation or absorption of their services and to receive equal treatment, atleast, they have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by the Respondents in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3.10.94 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition, wherein the demand No. 11 of the Union relating to the regularisation of all long suffered MR/casual workers/employees have been considered and the Department will consider the same favourably at the time of direct recruitment when current ban on fresh recruitment is lifted. Shri Nilmani Singh further contended that this ban had already been lifted and as such, as per Memorandum of Understanding arrived between the Union and the Department, competent authority of the Deptt. of Forest, the Respondents ought to have considered the case of those employees/workers for their absorption/regularisation in their respective services, but, the Respondents failed to perform their lawful duties.

The action of the Respondents towards those workers/employees in not considering their cases for absorption or regularisation of their respective services, is arbitrary, unfair and not in consonance with the requirements of giving due weight to legitimate expectation of the employees/workers. Supporting this contention, Shri Nilmani Singh had relied upon two decision of the Apex Court rendered in U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., and Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries,

At the hearing, Shri A. Jagatchandra Singh, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, contended that, the said employees/workers have no enforceable right inasmuch as the employees/workers so appointed dehors rules cannot claim for regularisation or absorption as of right and no public interest is involved in saving their appointments. Supporting this contention, Shri Jagatchandra Singh had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others, Shri Jagatchandra Singh, further contended, that the concerned authority had already notified the vacancy notice dated 27.6.97 for requisition of candidates to the 10(ten) vacant posts of LDC, post of driver and also post of Grade-IV under the related documents marked Annexure X/l to X/4 in Civil Misc. Application No. 330 of 1997. These vacant posts shall be filled up in accordance with the related requirement rules, but this process has been stayed by the order of this Court passed on 21.7.97 in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 330 of 1997. Shri Jagatchandra argued that these employees/workers have no right to claim for regularisation of their respective services in violation of the related recruitment rules.

Now, this Court is to examine as to whether these employees/workers whose particulars are reflected in documents marked Annexure A/1(1) to A/1(13) to the writ petition have enforceable right or not and, whetter their case deserves for consideration by the Respondents or not.

In para 8 of the writ petition, the Petitioner stated that a representation was made to the State Govt. and others concerned, under No. 1 /94/FDEWU dated 4.7.94, placing the charter of demands of the employees/workers. After prolonged discussions and negotiations between the Petitioner''s office bearers and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 3.10.94 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition was signed and executed, whereunder the Forest Deptt. conceded to some extent the demands of the Union for regularisation or absorption of those employees/ workers who have long been in service as casual or daily rated hands and, for granting to them some other benefits of service including equal pay for equal work. This statement of the Petitioner is not denied by the Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition and, as such, it can be opined that the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding still exists. In my considered view, the employees/workers have a legitimate expectation of the said Memorandum of Understanding with regard to the acceptance of their demands by the concerned Respondents and, such expectations may include expectation which goes beyond enforceable legal rights provided they have some reasonable basis.

In U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (supra), the Apex Court held thus:

In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation. The expression which is said to have originated from the judgment of Lord Denning in Schmidt v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng. Yuen Shiu, Privy Council applied this principle where expectations were "based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of, the public authority" and observed:

Accordingly ''legitimate expectations'' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights, provided they have some reasonable basis. A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment.

In Anr. case, namely, Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra), the Apex Court held, that the legitimate expectation becomes an enforceable right in case of failure of the State or its instrumentality to give due weight of it. In the instant case also, the Respondents had failed to give due weight to the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding dated 3.10.94 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition to the prejudice of the said employees/workers of the Forest Deptt. Moreover, no bonafide decisions has been made by the Respondents concerned in order to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in the matter till today without assigning any reason even in their counter affidavit.

In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) Supreme Today 165, the Apex Court held:

That all essential facilities and opportunities to the poor people are fundamental means to development, to live with minimum comforts, food, shelter, clothing and health. Due to economic constraints, though right to work was not declared as a fundamental right, right to work of workman, lower class, middle class and poor people is means to development and source to earn livelihood. Though, right to employment cannot, as a right, be claimed but after the appointment to a post or an office, be it under the State, its agency instrumentality, juristic person or private entrepreneur it is required to be dealt with as per public element and to act in public interest assuring equality, which is a genus of Article 14 and all other concomitant rights emanating therefrom are species to make their right to life and dignity of person real and meaningful. In a socialist democracy governed by the rule of law, private property, right of the citizen for developement and his right to employment and his entitlement for employment to the labour, would all harmoniously be blended to serve larger social interest and public purpose.

On perusal of the writ petition and also after hearing Shri A. Nilmani Singh, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the view that, these employees/workers are poor people of the State leading a miserable life and as such, their employment would be blended to enshrine the substantial degree of social, and economic equality which is the legitimate expectation and statutory goal. These employees/workers have been serving for a long period, ranging from 15 years, by now 17 years to not less than 3 years now, as seen in the document marked Annexure A/l(l )to A/l(l 3) to the writ petition and they acquire some experience in their respective jobs and atleast, the Respondents ought to have prepared a scheme on rational basis for absorption of these employees/workers as far as possible.

In daily rated casual labour employed under Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court held, that keeping the casual employees for a long period without regularisation of their services is not a wise policy. The Apex Court further direct the Respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing so far as possible, the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Post & Telegraph Department. In Anr. case, namely Niadar and Anr. v. Delhi Administration and Anr., (1992) 4 SCC 112 the Apex Court directed the Respondents/Delhi Administration, to prepare a scheme for absorption of the casual labourers who have worked for one year and more in the Soil Conservation Department as regular employees.

I have gone through the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and Ors. Appellants v. U.P. State Law Officers'' Association and Ors. Respondents (supra). In the said case, the appointment of the 26 Law Officers was made with stipulated contractual period. In that case, Apex Court held, that it was not open for those 26 (twenty six) Law Officers to challenge the validity of the order of removal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of valid reasons as they had no right to hold the office under the term of appointment. The fact of the case is quite different from the fact of the present case in hand, and, as such, the decisions so far cited by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate does not help the case of the Respondents.

14, Considering the existing facts and circumstances of the case as well as applying the established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, I direct the Respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis, taking into account of the length of services of those employees/workers of the Forest Department as in Annexure A/1 (1) to A/1 (13), rendered in the Department with the vacancy position of the related post/posts, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. It is also made clear that the benefit of the past services of those employees/workers shall be counted for the purpose of their retiral service benefits and other pensionary benefits and for the purpose of absorption. It is also further made clear, that the employees/workers of the Department concerned who are equally situated with the employees/workers involved in the present case shall also be considered and they should be treated equally by the Respondents. Interim orders passed in C. Misc. Appln. No. 330/97 are merged with this judgment.

For the reasons, observations and direction made above, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.