Benomali Baurman and Others vs State of Meghalaya and Others

N.S. Singh, J.—Upon hearing the learned Counsel both the parties, it appears to me(sic) writ Petitioners 7 in (sic) enforcement of their fundamental and other legal rights with a direction to the Respondents to regularise their services coupled with a prayer for quashing the impugned order of termination dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Engineering Wing, Department of Health Services, East Khasi Hills, Shillong as in Annexure-I to the writ petition.

Supporting the case of these writ Petitioners, Mr. S.M. Kharkongor, learned Counsel contended that the writ Petitioners were duly appointed by the Respondent No. 4 namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Engineering Wing. Directorate of Health Services, Shillong as Muster Roll workers under the Respondent-Deptt. since the year 1989 in case of Petitioner No. 1, year 1990 in case of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, year 1992 in case of the Petitioner Nos. 4,5 and 6 and, year 1993 in case of the Petitioner No. 7 and since then they have been rendering their services as on today even though the impugned termination order was issued, this Court by virtue of an ad-interim order allowed these Petitioners to serve as Muster Roll workers as on today under the Respondents-Department. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further argued that instead of issuing the impugned order of termination dated 11.8.1999, the Respondents concerned ought to have considered the case of the Petitioners for regularisation of their services and even, ought to have afforded the equal pay and status to them like those regular employees who have been rendering the same (sic) Respondents-Department (sic) decisions of the Apex Court and this Court reported in (1) AIR 1996 SC 584, (2) AIR 1997 SC 449, (3) (1998) 3 GLT 263 Debendra Nath Bora v. State of Assam and Ors..(4) (2001) GLT 644 Anil Kr. Bhttacharyya v. Union of Inida, and (5) (2001) 1 GLT 326: Lalneihzovi and Ors. v. NEHU and Ors.

At the hearing, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Counsel appearing for the State Respondents contended that these Petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis without any appointment being issued to them on the requirement of the Department and due to lack of stock-non plan Fund from which the expenditure of payment of Muster Roll is met, the petitions were issued with termination letters. Supporting the case of the State Respondents. Mr. Chullai, learned Counsel argued that the High Court cannot direct regularisation of the services of these Petitioners as they are daily wager. Supporting this argument, Mr. Chullai, learned Counsel had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Sardar Singh reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1528 and submitted that these writ Petitioners have no right to claim for regularisation of their services.

It is an admitted position that as on today, these Petitioners have been rendering their services under the Respondents-Department as Muster Roll workers ranging from 9 to 13 years approximately as the Petitioner No. 1 joined his service in the year 1989, the Petitioner No. 2 & 3 in the year 1990, Petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the year 1992 and the Petitioner No. 7 in the year 1993 without any break of service. It is also not disputed that there is a scheme under related office Memorandum dated 16.9.1996 framed by the Government of Meghalaya and, in terms of this scheme, a casual worker who has immediately before the date of coming into force of the said scheme, been working as such for a continuous period of not less than ten years may be conferred with a status of a Regular Casual Worker from such date and, as such, the services of those employees be regularised only in accordance with, the provisions of the Scheme. These are the admitted positions. The Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sardar Singh (supra) held that even though, the High Court could not direct regularisation of daily wager, the Court directs the State to frame a scheme for regularisation and where the scheme had already been framed it could direct the State for considering the matter of regularisation of the daily wager in accordance with the scheme. This is well settled law. Now the question arises as to whether the State Respondents/competent authority had considered the case of the Petitioners properly in terms of their related scheme? I would say "No". Therefore, it is their lawful duties conferred upon them by that scheme mentioned above to consider the case of the writ Petitioners herein. Apart from that, the State Respondents should also follow the principles particularly the direction as laid down by the Apex Court rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation, Appellant v. United Labour Union and Ors. Respondents reported in 1997 (2) S T 165 ; U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and ought to have considered the case of these Petitioners for their absorption or regularisation etc. etc. in the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court read with their own office Memorandum as discussed above but, the State Respondents had failed to do so.

In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court held thus:

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 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 development and his right to employment and his entitlement for employment to the labour, would harmoniously be blended to serve larger social interest and public purpose.

Considering the existing facts and circumstances of the case as well as applying and following the established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, I direct the Respondents concerned to consider the matter of regularisation of these writ Petitioners in accordance with the related scheme and in terms of the related decisions of the Apex Court mentioned above and, to accommodate them against the existing 25 vacant posts at the Civil Hospital, Shillong (as contended by Mr. S.M. Kharkongor, learned Counsel) and, to pass necessary order in the matter. This Court hope and trust that certainly, the State Respondents/competent authority shall do the needful in the matter to secure the ends of justice. It is also made clear that these Petitioners shall not be ousted from service till their case for regularisation is not considered by the State Respondents.

For the reasons, observations and direction made above, this writ petition is hereby disposed of but, no order as to costs.