AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) The petitioners before this Court (9 in numbers) have filed the instant writ petition to claim the benefits of the Scheme called the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993. The said Scheme envisages conferment of temporary status to Casual Labourers who were in employment on the date of implementation of the said Scheme on 01.09.1993, with a further condition that they must have rendered continuous service of at least 1(one) year, meaning that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week) before the said date.
2) Mr. D.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners have been in service before the introduction of the Scheme and according to him the said dates of their appointments have been indicated in Page-2 of the writ petition which is reproduced herein below:-
Sl. No.
Name of casual worker
Date of joining
1.
Shri Elias Marbaniang Engaged as Carpenter
01.06.1992
2.
Shri Jeliston Kharmynthon Engaged of Carpenter
01.06.1992
3.
Shri Probir Ghosh Engaged as Line Man
07.04.1992
4.
Shri Raj Mizar Engaged as Pump Operator
10.09.1989
5.
Shri Ranstar Kharpran Engaged as Mason
26.06.1992
6.
Shri Newstar Lyngdoh Engaged as Water Supply Operator
01.03.1990
7.
Shri Khrawbok Syiemlieh Engaged as Electrician
02.11.1991
8.
Shri Thwon Lyngdoh Engaged as Mason
23.06.1992
9.
Shri Donborlang Nongpiur Engaged as Electrician
02.11.1991
3) He further submits that the records of the University and certificates issued by different officials will substantiate the factum of their employment as Casual Workers of at least 1(one) year before the introduction of the said Scheme and as such they are entitled to be considered for conferment of temporary status.
4) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4 submits that the petitioners were never engaged as Casual Workers by any proper engagement and their claims cannot be based on the certificates issued by the Junior Engineers and other officials who had certified that the petitioners were in service at the time of introduction of the Scheme. He draws the Court's attention to Annexures 1 & 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition which are orders approving payment of daily wages on pro-rata basis w.e.f. 15.07.1997 to the petitioners by the respondents 3 and 4, and he submits that this is the only concrete fact to testify as to their engagement as casual employees, but however their employment or engagement, can only be reckoned from 1997 onwards and as such, they are not covered under the said Scheme.
5) Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1 submits that he has no submission to make as he is just a formal party and no relief is claimed against him.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions and also examined the materials on record.
7) The only dispute that is to be examined by this Court is to the eligibility of the petitioners to be included under the Scheme and the only point to be considered in my opinion is with regard to the date of their appointments as Casual Workers. On examination of the materials on record, one such document that seems relevant is the payment register which reflects the sanction for payment of Casual Workers through the respondents' officials in July 1992. Further, the approval for payment of daily wages on pro-rata basis as seen in the orders dated 20th December, 1997 (Annexures 2 & 3) do not reflect as to whether the orders are for fresh casual engagement or only approval for payment w.e.f. 15.07.1997.
8) The stated policy of the Government of India in introducing the Scheme can be seen is for the benefit of the Casual Workers so that they may have some security in their employment and also some hope for their future advancement in service. The Scheme being beneficial in nature in my opinion is to be liberally construed and the authorities deciding the matter should not be burdened by excessive technicalities.
9) In view of the facts and circumstances as afore stated, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 3 & 4, to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the Scheme and to re-examine their eligibility after taking into consideration their claim of engagement as casual workers that were made by different functionaries of the respondent No. 3, who have also certified the same. The entire exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
10) With the above noted directions this writ petition is accordingly disposed of.