Panjku Ram Amd Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

The petitioners have been engaged as Data Entry Operators by respondent­National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'NIELIT') in the years 2014, 2017 and 2018, pursuant to the request made by the Government for lending the services on outsource basis. Since the time of their appointment/engagement since the years 2014, 2017 and 2018, the petitioners are working as such, though, their initial appointment/engagement was for a period of one year, but, their services have been continued till 2020. The services of the petitioners have been engaged through NIELIT and later on, their services have been placed at the disposal of the Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners are rendering their services as Data Entry Operators under the National Scheme of End to End Computerization of Targeted Public Distribution System. The Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs is in the process of computerization under the said Scheme and the petitioners have been working for all these years since the time of their engagement by NIELIT.

After putting in their valuable services in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs for so many years, at this juncture, apprehending the threat of discontinuation of their services and in some cases, after discontinuation of their services, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions on various grounds.

The petitioners have sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to regularize their services. It is their contention that in terms of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, respondent­ NIELIT does not possess the mandatory requirement/licence to supply the manpower to the Government.

In CWP No. 3482 of 2020, where the petitioners have challenged the communications made by the Government to NIELIT stating that the services of the petitioners have to be discontinued since their services were no longer required, it is the submission of Mr. Saurav Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that some of the Districts have addressed a letter to the Director, Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs to continue the services of Data Entry Operators since their services are very much required. Hence, the letter addressed to NIELIT by the Director, Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs to discontinue their services is sought to be set aside in the said writ petition.

Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for respondent­NIELIT, while placing before us communication, dated 4th September, 2020, made by the Director In charge of NIELIT to him, alongwith the seniority wise list of employees working on outsource basis, submits that the services rendered by the petitioners have been listed and on the basis of the number of years of service rendered by them, a decision has been taken to re­engage their services wherever the services are required by the Government on outsourcing basis, as per the seniority list. Though, initially hundreds of people have been engaged, out of which some have been retained and some, including the petitioners, have been discontinued, but, by virtue of the decision now taken by NIELIT to continue their services, their names have been included in the seniority wise list prepared by them to that effect.

We have gone through the list prepared by the NIELIT. The names of all the petitioners are found in the said list, hence, the prayer of the petitioners for continuation of their services has been met by the respondent­NIELIT and the same has become infructuous.

During the course of hearing, we have noticed that the petitioners, whose services were engaged since 2014, 2017 or 2018 have been paid very meagre salary, which is even less than the minimum wages. Even a Group­D employee, including a Sweeper, of any Establishment, gets a salary of about Rs.16,000/­ ­ Rs. 20,000/­ per month and is well placed whereas the petitioners, who are Graduates and possess PGDCA and various Certificates in Information Technology, are being paid a very meagre amount of Rs.6,000/­ ­Rs.9,000/­ per month by the NIELIT, which nowhere equates the services rendered by Group­D employees. However, learned counsel for respondent­NIELIT submits that they are being paid more than Rs.10,000/­ per month.

Be that as it may, when the petitioners have rendered services to the Government, like any other regular employee, for the last about six years, keeping in view the very nature of their work of Data Entry Operators, the State Government and NIELIT should take a decision with regard to payment of wages befitting their status. The wages should be fixed depending upon the nature of their job, which should be at least the living wages. Paying Rs.200/­ ­ 300/­ per day to these persons nowhere matches to the nature of service rendered by them to the Government.

In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Part­B of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009, more particularly Rules 112 and 119. Rule 112 of these Rules pertains to outsourcing of services, in terms of which a Department may outsource certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. While handing over a particular job to an Agency, the Government has to decide the interest of economy and efficiency as an object.

Rule 119 relating to outsourcing by choice contemplates that a decision to outsource the services from a specific contractor could be taken by the Government only in exceptional situation.

When these guidelines/rules are available to the Government, merely outsourcing the services from an Agency, like NIELIT, is not an end to its duty, but the Government retains its inherent and supervisory powers with regard to fixing of minimum/living wages, etc. While saying so, we refrain ourselves from making any further observation.

In light of the submissions of learned counsel for respondent ­ NIELIT, appropriate orders qua re­engagement of the petitioners, as per seniority, be issued at the earliest.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, leaving open all the grounds taken by the petitioners to be raised before an appropriate forum at appropriate stage.