Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed a petition filed for issuing writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be made regular in the post of Scientific Assistant with all consequential service benefit.

Petitioner was first engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 30-10-2003 with the conditions that the authority may cancel the engagement letter at any point of time without any reason and without any prior notice before expiry of contract period. The petitioner completed 10 years of service on 07-11-2013. After completion of 10 years of his contract service, he prayed for regularization of his service in the post of Scientific Officer. The case of the petitioner was not considered, which prompted him to approach this court by filing the present petition.

The Court from the submissions of counsel appearing for the State-respondents noted that Department concurred to the proposal of Urban Development Department for creation of 1(one) post of Scientific Assistant in Kumarghat Municipal Council, subject to obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department. Further a note dated 21-12-2017 mentioned that “Finance Department concurs with the proposal of the Department for creation of 1(one) post of “Scientific Assistant” to accommodate one Sri Nipu Roy who was appointed on 31-10-2003 in Kumarghat Municipal Council subject to approval of Council of Ministers.” But, till today the Government has not taken any decision in regard to the creation of the said post.

The Court further held that ‘it is not within the domain of this Court to direct the State- Government to create any post. It is absolutely within the domain of the State policy.”

The petition was dismissed finding no merits however the Court remarked that since the petitioner has been rendering his valuable service, liberty is given to him to file a representation before the appropriate authority to consider the decision of the said Note dated 21-12-2017 since it is evident that service of one Binay Bhusan Paul who was engaged under the same engagement letter dated 10-11-2003 had been regularized w.e.f. 22-11-2011.

[Nipu Roy v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 485, decided on 19-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr C.S.Sinha, Advocate, for the Petitioner(s);

Mr P.K.Dhar, Sr. G.A., Mr A. Dey, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. dismissed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the award dated 14-02-2020 by which petitioner-State of Gujarat has been directed to pay to the respondent-sweeper, salary for undertaking work for four hours a day together with arrears from the date of reinstatement. It was also directed that when a regular process of recruitment is undertaken, looking to her tenure of service since the year 1985, preference be given to her.

Respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of– part-timer in reference to extending the benefits that were available to full time employees. It was contended that she had completed over 30 years of service and even thereafter she was still being paid fixed wages though working in the establishment from 10 am to 6.30 pm.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that she was not appointed on a permanent set up but she worked as and when there was work available for a period of two years for cleaning and serving water. That she was paid through the contingency funds. That, there was no regular set up and since her appointment was not in accordance with the procedure of recruitment, she was not entitled to regularization.

Perusal of the reasoning assigned by the Industrial Tribunal for granting the benefits of fixed pay of 4 hours of work and only granting a limited benefit of letting the respondent-workman participate in the recruitment process as and when taken, was:

1) In her deposition she stated that she was not given any appointment order. Vouchers for December 1989 to July 1991 were produced by the employer which persuaded the Industrial Tribunal to hold that in absence of any evidence contrary that the respondent had worked only for two hours in a day, examining the nature of duties that the respondent carried out, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that she was working for over eight hours a day.

2) Court found that on her services from 1985 till the date of reinstatement based on an award in her favour which was confirmed by the High Court, the deposition of the respondent indicate the various activities, nature of duties or work that she carried out and it was plausible to believe that the kind and nature of work she undertook, there was reason to believe that the work would last for more than two hours.

The Court found no fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition.[State of Gujarat v. Saurashtra Majur Mahajan Sangh, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 722, decided on 04-05-2022]

Ms Surbhi Bhati, AGP for the Petitioner(s) 1,2

Krishnam M Ghavariya for the Respondent(s) 1

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Kumar, J., allowed the petition filed by the petitioner stating that the tribunal has failed to pass a reasoned order by considering the evidence and pleading of the parties.

In the pertinent case, the petitioner moved to this Court for quashing of the award passed in Reference Case No. 34 of 2014 whereby the reference was in favor of the respondent, directing the petitioner to reinstate the service of the respondent as a daily wager.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after passing an order for representation, the respondent has kept silent in this matter and after the lapse of 16 years, an industrial dispute was raised. Further, an award was passed which ordered for reinstatement of the workman as daily wager and option has been given for regularization but with no direction.

The Court held that from the perusal of the award it is observed that during the pleadings, neither any documents were exhibited nor any witnesses were examined and the Tribunal had passed its order only relying upon the judgment of Patna High Court passed in CWJC No. 4115 of 1997. The Court also observed the following :

It is trite that principle of res-judicata applies often in the case of Industrial Dispute. If there was an order in favour of the workman then the reference was not maintainable. The Tribunal is supposed to answer any reference by considering the evidence and pleading of the parties.”

In view of the above, the Court found that the impugned award passed in Reference Case is not sustainable and stands quashed as the Tribunal has passed the order without considering the pleading and evidence of the party. The Court also observed that the respondent was removed from daily wager w.e.f. March, 1997 and reference are of the year 2014 i.e. after a lapse of more than 16 years. In this manner as well, the dispute has become stale and requires no adjudication.[Employers in relation to the Management of UCO Bank v. Surendra Ramani, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1118, decided on 26-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., directed the respondents to give the benefits of a classified permanent employee to the petitioner.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking the Court to direct the respondents to pay him the salary as per the pay scale of the post of Helper to Carpenter. On 03-08-1982, the petitioner held the post of Helper to Carpenter on a daily wage basis. The respondent issued an order in 2004 for classification of daily rated employees to have permanent status and later in 2005, they were classified as a permanent employee. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to release his regular salary along with all benefits of his permanent status pursuant to the classification.

The Court relied the Supreme Court’s judgment on Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray, 2017 (3) SCC 436 to discuss the law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order of classification. Once a person is conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is held by the Court that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay-scale, they would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. For the same reason, it is necessary to determine whether these employees can be treated as ‘regular’ employees in view of the aforesaid classification? A ‘permanent employee’ has the right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, but they will receive the minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularization in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. The Court also discussed that the State Government grants increments while fixing the pay scale. 

The Court disposed of the petition by holding that the petitioner must be paid the minimum pay scale admissible to the post on which he was classified as a permanent employee without any increment. [Ashok v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1959, decided on 09-08-2019]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., allowed a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners seeking consideration of their respective cases for change of designation from Helper (Civil) to Electrician, Carpenter and Motor Mechanic respectively.

The petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Helpers in the respondent-department. The petitioners were fully technically trained in the trades of Electrician, Carpentry and Operational & Manual Maintenance of the Boiler Plant, respectively and they were granted the benefit of upgradation as semi-skilled workers. The petitioners had time and again requested the respondent authorities to change their designation from Helper as fixed in terms of their orders of regularization, to the posts of Electrician, Carpenter and Motor Mechanic, respectively. The respondents did not change their designation.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the respondent authorities were justified in not changing the designation of the petitioners.

The Court observed that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners have high degree practical expertise and training in their respective trades of Electrician, Carpenter and Motor Mechanic, besides, possessing the certificates issued by the Technical Institutions. The petitioners have been discharging their duties diligently since quite a long time and the respondents without considering their expertise had regularized them on the post of Helper (Civil). The Court further observed that regularization ought to have been done keeping in mind the expertise and practical experience possessed by the petitioners.

The Court held that the respondents have been extracting work from the petitioners but they have deprived the petitioners of service benefits and hence the respondents have not extended fair treatment to the petitioners in the matter of public employment. The Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners for the change of designation from Helper to Electrician, Carpenter and Motor Mechanic, respectively and grant them all the benefits which they are entitled to receive. [Bashir Ahmad Malik v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 684, order dated 24-09-2018]