ARCHANA DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-5
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 03,1994

SMTLARCHANADAS,SMTLARCHANA DAS,PANKAJ CHOWDHURY,SMTISUKLA SINHA,SMTL ARCHANA DEBNATH,SMTL SUMTTRA,SMTL DHAIRJYA PAUL,GAUTAM CHAKRABORTY,DEBAPRAT1M MAJUMDAR,BEJONSARKAR,ANUP KR.ADHKARI,UMA DEBNATH,SANKAR DEBNATH,MITA SINGHA,NKHIL DEBNATH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRFPURA,STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ANIL KUMAR-VS-CHIEF SECY. [REFERRED TO]
B.K.SRIVASTAVA-VS-STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,-VS-PUSHPA SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUNA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BABITA PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. AGHORE NATH DEY:BISWANATH GHOSH:MAJHARUL ISLAM KHAN:AGHORE NATH DEY:BISWANATH GHOSH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The controversy in all the aforesaid cases revolves around the engagement of the petitioners in the Tripura Legislative Assembly (for short TLA) by Secretary, TLA to attend the nature of works of Class-Ill and Class-IV. The question being identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. The fallowings are the relevant particulars of the petitioners : SI. Name of the No. of writ Date of eng- Nature of Date of No.writ petitioner petition. agement. engagement termination 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Smti. Archna Das C.R. 188/93 21-9-92 To do any type work of Class-III nature. 3-7-93 2. Shri Pankaj Chow- C.R. 186/93 27-11-92 Class-Ill staff to work is operator .3-7-93 3. Smti. Sukla Sinha C.R. 170/93 06-07-92 To do any type of work of Class III nature. 3-7-93 4. Smti. Archana C.R. 187/93 DebNath 02-01-93 -do- 3-7-93 5, Smti Sumitra C.R. 189/93 17-05-92 -do- 3-7-93 6. Smti. Dhairiya C.R. 190/93 Paul 12-05-92 -do- 3-7-93 7. Shri Gautam C.R. 196/93 Chakraborty 05-01-93 -do- 3-7-93 8. Shri Debapratim C.R. 197/93 Majumdar 18-09-92 To do work of Stenographer Gr. III. 3-7-93 9. Shri Bejon Sarkar C.R. 198/93 02-04-93 Class-El to do work or" Operator 3-7-93 10. Shri Anup Kr. C.R. 199/93 Adhikari. 02-01-93 Class-Ill to do work of Junior Operator 3-7-93 11.Smti.Uma Debnath C.R.200/93 30-03-92 Class-in to do any type of work of Class-IV nature in MLAs' Hostel or residence as & when detailed to her by the office Sapdt. 3-6-93 12.Shri Sankar C.R.201/93 Debnath 18-09-93 -do- 3-7-93 13. Smti. Mita SinghaC.R. 202/93 30-12-92 Class-III to do any type of work of Class-TV nature 3-7-93 14.Shri Nikhil C.R.203/93 Debnath 23-12-92 Class-Ill to do : any type of work of class IV nature in MLAs' Hostel 3-6-93 or residence, as may be detailed.
(2.)Secretary, TLA engaged the aforesaid petitioners to do the work as mentioned above by issuing orders of engagement as per the date mentioned in the fourth column against the name of each petitioner on similar terms, namely, each of them is engaged on contract basis as Class-Ill or Class-IV as mentioned against the name of each petitioner on no work no pay basis on fixed remuneration of Rs. 800/- per month with effect, from the date of their joining until further orders. In the orders of engagement it was made clear that the petitioners so engaged would not be entitled to D.A., C.A., House Rent, Medical Allowances. T.A., Pension, Leave etc. and would not be subject to any disciplinary rules. It was further stated that their services might be terminated at any time either on violation of agreement wholly or in part or when the authority concerned might deem it necessary and that absence from duty shall be treated as not on duty resulting in payment of no remuneration. Expenditure was debatable to Head-2011-Parliament, State/Union Territory Legislature, 103-Legislature Secretariat 103(2) .-Wages. Each of the petitioners was engaged by separate order with date as shown in their tabulation statement (supra).
(3.)Each of the petitioners was served with notice and order of termination dated 3-7-93 more or less on similar terms, namely, the appointment was given purely short term basis to cope with the mounting arrear of works and for such appointment no post was sanctioned and no extra fund was provided by the State Government. On reapprisal of the work load it has been found that continuation of the contract employment of petitioners beyond 30th June, 1993 shall not be necessary and the existing regular employees of the Secretariat shall be able to cope with the works on proper re-distribution and monitoring. Each of the petitioners was served with notice that his/her- services shall not be required beyond 2-7-93 and his/ her contract services shall stand terminated with effect from the forenoon of 3rd July, 1993. The date 2-7-1993 was fixed in order to give 30 day's notice.


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