Jagadish Deka vs State of Assam and Others

Amitava Roy, J.—Being aggrieved by the inaction of the State respondents in regularising his services, the petitioner is before this Court seeking redress, I have Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned State counsel.

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari on 16.12.1988. Though he was initially appointed for a period of 90 days, his appointment was thereafter extended from time to time. His appointment was in the scale of Rs. 420/- to 730/-. Eventually, he was allowed to draw the fixed pay at the rate of Rs. 1330/- per month with effect from 1.9.1997. The petitioner has categorically stated in the petition that he is in continuous services from 16.12.1988. His prayer before the State authorities for regularisation of his service has fallen into deaf ear. This Court by order dated 19.8.1998 passed in Misc. Case No. 880/98 directed that the petitioner should not be ousted from the post of Driver and that he should be paid his salary until further orders.

The State respondents have filed the affidavit in which, while admitting that the petitioner has been working as a Driver with effect from 16.12.1988, they have contended that no post of Driver was sanctioned for the office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, and that the petitioner had been accommodated against a post temporarily created for a period of 90 days at the fixed pay of Rs. 750.

The respondents have no denied in their affidavit that the petitioner is continuing in service. As a matter of fact, the certificate issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari (Annexure-D to the writ petition) is to the effect that the petition is serving the said office since 16.12.1988 as a Driver.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his arguments submitted that the petitioner is still in service and receiving fixed pay of Rs. 1440. However, as his service has not been regularized he has not been sanctioned regular pay scale. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner being in continuous services for last 14 years, he is entitled under the law for regularisation of his service and other consequential benefits.

Mr. Mahanta, learned State counsel has submitted that if the petitioner is in fact serving for last so many years his case deserves consideration for regularisation if there is no other impediment in law.

From the materials on record it can not be gathered that it is the stand of the official respondents that the petitioner is not in service as on date. On the other hand, the certificate issued by the District authority, Nalbari supports the claim of the petitioner. If that the be so, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in his service in terms of the relevant Circulars, guidelines issued by the respondent/authorities. I therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2, Director of Elementary Education, Assam to take up the case of the petitioner immediately for regularisation of his service and if his claim is found to be genuine and tenable in law, the said authority would pass appropriate orders in that regard. Needless to say, that on such regularisation, the petitioner would be entitled to regular scale of pay and other incidental benefits. As the petitioner is waiting for a long time for regularisation of his service, the above mentioned respondent would complete the process within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.