AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in the present petition seek direction against the respondents for regularization of their services along with other benefits, on the
ground that they have completed more than 28 years of continuous service.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are Grade-IV employees and are working as Night Chowkidar and Sweeper. They were appointed to
their respective posts under the National Programme for Control of Blindness.
The petitioner No. 1 was initially engaged as a night chowkidar with a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 250/- in the year 1982, and the
petitioner No. 2 was engaged as a sweeper on 1st September 1986 with a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 250/-.
According to the petitioners, they have been working with the respondents continuously without any break in service, but their services have not
been regularized and their yearly increments have not been paid w.e.f. 1989.
The petitioners represented for grant of annual increments on revised pay scale w.e.f. 1st September, 1989, but the respondents have not
responded to their request. The petitioners also represented to the respondents for regularization of their posts and for payment of increment,
stating that they have completed 28 years of service continuously, without any break in their service. However, no action was taken by the
respondents on their representations, thereby forcing the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present petition.
The respondents have contested the petition and filed an affidavit in opposition stating that the petitioners are serving as casual employees and
that there no sanctioned post of Chowkidar and Sweeper. It is further stated that being casual employees and not holding any sanctioned post, the
petitioners are not entitled to any benefits as claimed by them in the instant petition.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also carefully perused the material on record.
Admittedly, the petitioners are working as chowkidar and sweeper with the respondents for the last about 31 years. On 16th September, 1986
Adviser, Ophthalmology, Meghalaya, Shillong forwarded the applications of the petitioners to the Director of Health Services, for the post of Night
Chowkidar and Sweeper under the National Programme for Control Blindness of the Directorate of Health Services. It was recommended that the
petitioners be appointed w.e.f. 1st September, 1986 on the time scale of pay of Rs. 300-5-330-6-390-7-425 PM.
The Director of Health Services vide order dated 12th December, 1986 temporarily appointed the petitioner No. 1 as Night Chowkidar and
petitioner No. 2 as Sweeper (casual employees) for a period of four months w.e.f. 1st September, 1986 to 31st December 1986 and attached
them to Mobile Eye Unit Ophthalmology, Shillong.
The record also reveals that a request was also made by the Adviser, Ophthalmology to the Director of Health Services, for the creation of
posts of Night Chowkidar and Sweeper under the National Programme for Control of Blindness (Central Mobile Unit) as the said posts were
filled up since 1986 as casual employees.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners laid emphasis to the fact that 13/14 employees are working in the Eye
Hospital under the National Programme for Control of Blindness, and some of them, who joined after the petitioners, have been given
appointment, whereas the petitioners who completed more than thirty years of continuous service are kept on casual basis, thereby clearly showing
discrimination against the petitioners and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of the Court to a decision of the Cabinet in 2002, whereby it was decided to
regularize the services of all the adhoc employees and by a W.T. Message vide Memo. No. CS/Misc/2002 dated 30th April, 2002 (Annexure-1
of affidavit of the petitioner dated 16-11-2016) forwarded by the then Chief Secretary, wherein it was stated that the Government had laid down a
policy that no adhoc appointment would be given by any authority under the Government without the approval of the Cabinet. It was also decided
that until the Cabinet could review such cases on receipt of the consolidated statement, termination of adhoc appointees should be kept in
abeyance.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and without going into the merit of the present case, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the case of the petitioners before the Cabinet for consideration and appropriate orders
expeditiously, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.