Decided on February 07,1994



- (1.)1. There are altogether 34 petitioners in Civil Rule 40 (K) 93. Originally there were 36 of them, but during the pendency of this petition, petitioners 30 and 34 have withdrawn. Accordingly the names of petitioner No. 30 Shri Chubaonen and the name of petitioner No. 34 Shri Mon Bahadur shall stand struck off. There are four petitioners in Civil Rule 35(K) 93. By this Judgment, I propose to dispose of these two petitions as the question involved is same.
(2.)The petitioners in Civil Rule 40 (K) 93 were appointed as work charge Jugalis, work charge helpers and work charge Khalasis during the period beginning from 1972 to 1988. The latest appointment in this regard was made in respect of petitioner No. 35 in Civil Rule 40 (K) 93 Shri Imkongyabang by order dated 4.5.88. In Civil Rule 35 (K) 93, petitioner No. 2 Shri Imtikumba was appointed as work charge time scale labour and the other petitioners were appointed as Work charge Khalasis. They were appointed during the period from 1977 to 1986. In fact in respect of petitioner No. 4 Shri Lipokmar, one promotion was given to him as work charge Khalasi from the post of time scale labour.
(3.)It is contended by Mr. Imti Longchar appearing on behalf of the petitioners that whereas in the initial appointments the petitioners were put in scales, however small the scale might have been, that employment by giving them regular scales of pay was sought to be taken away by the impugned order dated 20th April, 1993 issued by SDO, PWD (Housing). By this impugned order, the petitioners were reverted to draw fixed pay of Rs. 450/- per month w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. This order has been impugned firstly on the ground that SDO is not the competent authority to issue such order in asmuchas the petitioners had been appointed earlier by the Executive Engineer. Secondly, this order is also impugned on the ground that once the petitioners were allowed to receive their pay and allowances according to the scales of pay prescribed for the various posts held by them, to revert them to work for fixed pay of Rs. 450/- is not permissible . This order is also impugned on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before such order was issued. Another contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that since the petitioners have put in long periods of service. It is the duty of the Government to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners. As mentioned above, the latest appointment made in respect of petitioner No. 35 was on 4.5.88, This means that petitioner No. 35 has also put in five years. Persons who were appointed in 1972 have by now put in 22 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before me that in Civil Rules 1074/90, 3(K)93, 114/92 decided on 11.5.93 and also in Civil Rules 3(K)93, 117(K)92, 2(K)92, 116(K)92, 125(K)92 and 136(K)92 decided on 29.6.93, on the basis of statement made by the Learned Addl. Advocate General that Government has now formulated a policy to regularise the services of Government employees who have put in three years service, this court had directed to take back the petitioners whose services had been terminated earlier. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners deserves such treatment by giving them regular employment in as much as they have put in several years of service. As stated above, the shortest length of service among the petitioners is about five years.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.