Nanu Devi (Balmiki) vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Amitava Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Choudhury, SR. CGSC.

The short but substantive relief which the petitioner seeks in the writ petition is for regularisation of her services under the respondent-Corporation. According to her, she was appointed as a casual worker in the year 1986 at a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 90 to be calculated on daily wage basis. She has been serving since then on the said terms.

According to her, she was transferred under the administrative control of the respondent No. 4 at Nagaon, Senchowa, F.S.D. after her appointment. But however no written order of appointment was offered to her. Her grievance is that persons similarly situated like her have been regularised in their service, by dint of their service for few years, but her case had not been considered. Her representations to the said effect have also fallen on deaf ears. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of an official communication date 3.10.1998 embodying the policy of the Corporation that a labourer who works for 90 days is eligible for regularisations of his employment as per the F.C.I. Rules, she was entitled to be regularised considering the tenure of her service since 1986. She has also contended as above, referring to the decisions of this court where directions have been issued for regularisation of the service of the petitioner similarly situated like her. The respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, in its affidavit has denied that the petitioner was appointed as a casual worker on a temporary basis and has instead claimed that she was engaged on daily rate basis as a cleaner, washer etc. in the District of Nowgong. In the said capacity she used to work for 15/20 minutes in a day, which had been rounded up as an hour for the purpose of calculation of the wage which was calculated at Rs. 3 per day. According to the respondent-Corporation, therefore, the petitioner had no substantive right for regularisation of her service and the policy embodied in the circular was not applicable in her case. It has also contended that the petitioner''s case is not similar to those, whose cases have been disposed of by this court as claimed by her.

Be that as it may, this Court while issuing notice of motion on 4.4.1994 had in the interim directed that services of the petitioner should not be disturbed. In normal course, therefore, the petitioner should be continuing in service in the Corporation. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that in view of long lapse of time it is likely that the petitioner is no long rendering her services to the Corporation. Having regard to the fact that this court had allowed the petitioner to continue in her services far back as on 4.4.1994 and no further orders have been passed vacating or modifying the order, it would not be fair to non suit the petitioner by accepting the submission of Mr. Choudhury at this stage, more particularly, when the said contention is resisted by Mr. Purkayastha.

From the documents annexed to the writ petition as well as the pleadings of the parties, it appears prima facie, that the petitioner has been serving under the Corporation from September, 1986 on casual basis. This is, more particularly, found from 2 lists of respondent Corporation which reflect the particulars of officers and casual employees, wherein the name of the petitioner figures at bottom. The communication dated 3.10.1981 (Annexure - 10) to the writ petition, inter alia, provides that if a labourer works for 90 days he is deemed to be eligible for regularisation of service as per F.C.I. Rules. If the petitioner, in fact is still serving as a casual employee under the Corporation, I feel, keeping in view the number of years for which she is serving under the Corporation she is entitled to be considered for regularisation by the respondent in terms of the said policy as well as other relevant provisions of the Rules framed in this regard.

In the above premises, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioner is in service as on today, the respondent No. 2, the Regional Manager, FCI, Ulubari, Gauhati would verify the service profile of the petitioner for regularisation of her service under the Corporation in terms of the policy contained in the communication dated 3.10.2001 and the existing Rules in that regard and if the petitioner is found eligible for the same, the said authority would do the needful to redress her grievance. The exercise would be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, while examining the case of the petitioner, the authority would however give a reasonable opportunity to her to produce all relevant documents in support of her claim.