AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. B. Goswaml, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
The case of the ten (10) petitioners in this writ petition is that they have been working at Panchayat Raj Training Centre (in short ''PRTC'') at two different Centre namely at Joysargar and Kahikuchi for several years. But their services has not been regularised for which they are going to be deprived of their all pensionary benefits after their retirement on superannuation. It is stated that since their institutional Head of Joysagar and Kahikuchi Centre is being the Principal appointed by the State Government, it is he who selects the staff of the Training Centre following the normal procedure examining the eligibility by age, educational qualification and others. All the petitioners of such Centre have been appointed by the Principal himself or on his authority by the non-official agency for work connected with imparting training to members/office bearers of the Panchayats. These institutions for the benefit of which the staff including petitioner work, belong to the Govt. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been receiving similar pay and allowances and other benefits as Government employees for which the Government rules and regulations have been applied in regulating their services, pay and leave etc.
Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Joint Director of the Panchayat and C.D. Assam, Rehabari by his communication dated 28.5.1981 addressed to the Principal of Panchayat Raj Training Centre, Joysagar informed that the Government is contemplating to regularise the services of the non-Govt. employee working in the Panchayat Raj Training Centre for which requests has been made to the authority concerned to furnish the particulars of non-Govt. employees working in the Panchayat Raj Training Centre. Further by another communication dated 4.1.1984 the Director of Panchayat and C.D., Assam Rehabari, Guwahati wrote to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and C.D. Department, Branch, Dispute, Guwahati, furnishing the particulars regarding the employees of PRTC requesting the authority to consider for regularisation of services of non-gazetted employees i.e. petitioners in the PRTC. The copy of the said communication is extracted herein below:-
"With reference to your letter quoted above I have the honour to furnish the particulars as called for as follows: -
(1) In the matter of regularisation of the PRTC employees at par with Govt. servants, the question of any demerits does not arise. From the humanitarian point of view they should be treated as per with Govt. servants since they are drawing pay etc. from the Govt. pruso through as grant-in-aid. If the employees are not treated as Govt. servants they will be deprived of confirmation, pension etc. and will have to go on retirement with bare hands after rendering so many years of services, for the Govt. programmes. After retirement, they will not get any gratuity or GPF/CPF.
(2) There will be no extra financial involvement except the pension and gratuity, if they are treated at par with Govt. servants since their pay etc. are already borne by Govt. as Grant-in-aid. The only change will be In the nomenclature. However, if they are treated as Govt. servants and confirmed in services, they will get the pensionary benefits only after their retirement.
(3) No direct commitment is there, but since they are paid out of Govt. funds, through Grant-in-aid, there is inherent commitment on the part of the Govt. that the PRTCCs non-Govt. employees are treated in the line of Govt. servants. It may be pointed out that all the service conditions of the PRTC non-Govt. employees are governed by the FR/SR and other Govt. act and rules. Hence It is the aspiration and hope of the PRTC employees that they would be treated at par with Govt. employees with extension of all service benefits. Moreover, they have already been allowed to enjoy all monetary benefits as admissible to Govt. servants from time to time except only pensionary benefits."
In view of such communication, the petitioners received definite assurance from the Principal that their services are going to be regularised for the pensionary benefit and with that hope and aspiration petitioners have been rendering their services with all devotion and sincerity. Despite the said assurance, the authority has not taken up the matter for consideration of regularisation of services in order to enable them to get the pensionary benefit. Hence the writ petition.
The State-respondent has contested the statements and averments made in the writ petition by filing affldavit-in-opposition as well as additional affidavit. In both the affidavits, Government has taken the stand that since the petitioners are not treated as the Govt. employee, they are not entitled to any benefits as claimed in the writ petition and the petitioners are the employees of Assam State Co-operative Union, the organising authority of PRTC. Interestingly in the said affidavit-in-opposition filed on 19.2.1997 the State-respondent in paragraph 15 averred as follows:
"15. That with regard to statements made in paragraphs 28 of the petition, the deponent submits that the matter relating to petitioners is still under consideration and the Government is not aversed to the prayer of the petitioners."
A mere look on this paragraph goes to show despite the Government stand that the petitioners are not their employees, the petitioners'' case are still under consideration by which it can be well inferred that Govt. may declare the petitioners as its employee.
Similarly in filing the additional affidavit on 9.11.2000 the State respondent has stated that the stand taken in the earlier affidavit i.e. affidavit-in-opposition has not been changed till date. The said additional affidavit has been filed only to inform the Court that staff working under Training Centre on deputation are only the Govt. employee except the employees working under Panchayati Raj Training Centres viz., Kahikuchi, Jaysagar and Arunachal and the present petitioner of PRTC are not declared as Government employee.
I have perused the materials available on records including pleadings of the parties. Having regard to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that when the authorities i.e. Director and Joint Director are making communication with the authorities for regularisation of their services stating that'' since the employee of PRTC are at par with the Govt. servant as well as they are drawing their pay etc. at par with the other Government servants, if the employees/petitioners are not treated as Govt. servants, they will be deprived of their getting their pension etc. They have to go bare of any monetary benefit in spite of rendering so many years in service for the Government programme and after retirement they will not get any gratuity or any other retrial benefits. It is manifestly clear from the statements made by the State-respondent as quoted in paragraphs 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the Government is considering the case of the petitioners. I feel that the State-respondent shall come out with an open mind to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in order to give them only the pensionary benefit after their retirement considering their continuous services for several years in Government programmes. On perusal of the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondent this court by order dated 10.4.2001 observed as follows:
"In view of the fact as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that this matter is under consideration. I grant further 2 months time to the authorities to finalise the matter inasmuch as if the authorities finalise the matter, the petitioners shall have no grievance..
List this matter after 2 months....."
A welfare State, in its quest to improve the economic and social welfare of the people, has assumed all pervasive power with the sole intention to give maximum benefits to its people. The ideal of social Welfare State is to create socio-economic pattern of the Society which involves improving the economic condition of the people keeping in view the demand of social justice. Our Constitution swearing in the name of Rule of Law in order to render social, economic and political justice, aims at to remove all the social imbalances and inequality in giving opportunity and social status its citizens. Equality and dignity of the people are accepted as corner-stones of social democracy in rendering social justice. Socio-economic justice under our Constitution must, therefore, be understood in a comprehensive senses to remove every inequality, wherever such inequality is complained of and to provide equal opportunity to all its citizens in every sphere of life ; in order to make their social as well as economic conditions better. In order to make Rule of Law more dynamic, the State must come forward to perform progressive activities in the society for human progress. In doing so the citizens must be given the impression and understanding that a social change has been adopted to relieve them from their handicaps, miseries and scourge and to make their lives liveable for greater good of the society at large.
In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners are given the salaries and other allowances at part with the Govt. servants. On the other hand they have been putting in their services in the respective PRTC for more than 20 years as revealed from the records, the fact which is also not disputed by the State/Respondent. The only stand of the State/Respondent is that since the petitioners are not declared as Govt. employees they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits as claimed. Having regard to the discussions mentioned above as well as the Government''s averments made at paragraph 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition, I do not find that why the State/Respondent can not declare them to be the Govt. employee that too only for the purpose of enabling them to be eligible for Pensionary benefits etc. A person joins in his service not only for this day-to-day livelihood but also with the hope and a expectation of future prospect and avenues mainly to get socio-economic security after his retirement on superannuation. If such employees is deprived of getting minimum such protection after his retirement, the mandate of welfare State shall be wholly frustrated. Accordingly in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to for consideration of declaration of their services as Govt. employees so that they can get their minimum retrial benefits.
When the matter has been taken up today for hearing, on pointed asking from this Court the learned Govt. Advocate has stated that he has no instruction in this regard. Keeping in view the said submission of the learned Govt. advocate, this Court has no alternative but to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in order to declare the petitioners as Govt. employee so as to make them eligible for payment of pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits on the retirement of superannuation and also for making eligible for such payment to those persons who have already retired on attaining their superannuation.
However, in the interest of justice and for the sake of equity, I allow the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department six months'' time from the date of receipt of this order to frame a scheme in this regard In order to afford socio-economic security to the petitioners, considering the entire factual aspects as stated in the writ petition. It is made clear that In framing such scheme the said authority shall be at liberty to take all the necessary assistance and co-operation from all the interested authorities concerned.
Petitioners shall furnish a certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition and all annexures appended thereto before the competent authority who shall do the needful as per direction indicated herein above.
In the result the petition is disposed of. However, I pass no order as to costs.