Swapan Debnath vs Union Of India And 2 Others

Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asstt. S.G appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner has claimed that he had been performing his duties as the Contingent Worker [Gardener] under the respondent No.3 to their satisfaction till 14.01.2020. After the cashless transaction was introduced, the respondent No.3 started paying the wages of all the contingent workers though their respective bank accounts. The monthly wages of the petitioner for the month of December, 2016 was paid by the respondent No.3 into his bank account on 02.01.2017, but thereafter the respondent No.3 stopped paying the wages of the contingent workers through their bank accounts, rather they had restored the old system by paying in cash. Almost after serving more than 10 years, the petitioner had submitted the representation to the higher authorities for regularization of his service. However, Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the outset submitted that in this writ petition, the petitioner does not have any claim for regularization. On 14.01.2020, the petitioner was deputed at the residence of the respondent No.3 to look after the garden of his residence. After performing the duty in the first half, the petitioner went to have his meal but while attending the duty for the later part, the petitioner became late by 10 minutes. For such delay in attending his duty, the wife of the respondent No.3 became very annoyed and asked the petitioner that he would be no more in service. He was sacked from the service but without any order in writing. According to the petitioner, he has been terminated from the service. Thus, no regard has been given to the service he had rendered for one and half decade.

After his termination on 14.01.2020, he had submitted representation on 06.08.2020 to the respondent No.1 and another representation dated 21.08.2020 to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 11001 by placing his grievance against the termination. On 29.08.2020, again the petitioner had submitted representation to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and also to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India but without any response from them. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of the spouse of the respondent No.3, the petitioner has been disengaged from the service after putting for more than 15 years of service. The petitioner has clearly admitted that the petitioner was never given any engagement letter. However, he has emphatically stated that other 14 contingent workers are still working and they have been retained in their service. Only the petitioner has been terminated arbitrarily, illegally and unreasonably.

In the reply, the respondents No.1,2 & 3 have stated that the petitioner was hired as the part-time casual worker for some casual works under SIB, Agartala w.e.f. 12.12.2019 on no work no wage basis, in accordance with the DOP & T OM dated 07.06.1998. He has been disengaged on 14.01.2020 as his service was no longer required. Prior to that, the petitioner was also engaged and disengaged at the SIB on different occasions from 13.06.2005 on actual requirement basis. The wages for the part-time casual workers are regulated on the basis of the rates revised by the State Government from time to time. It has been categorically stated in the reply that the allegations with regard to his termination from service on the instigation of the spouse of the respondent No.3 are baseless and mischievous. He has been disengaged on 14.01.2020 only as his services was no more required. The respondents have further stated that the wages of the part time casual workers are regulated on the basis of the rates published/revised by the State Government from time to time. True it is that the petitioner's wage is Rs.10,500/- per month, but they have categorically denied that the petitioner's claim regarding receipt of the wage at Rs.10,500/- per month from 13.06.2005 is not correct. His engagement is not waged basis. The engagement was for limited period only. It is apparent that the respondents' plea against the petitioner is that the petitioner does not have any right to hold any post. Moreover, it is admitted position that there is no letter of engagement embodying the conditions of service. As such, what the respondents have stated that whenever there were some works, the petitioner used to be engaged and later on disengaged. In Para-14 of the reply, the respondents have stated further that the petitioner has not been illegally terminated as his service was being taken purely on daily wages-basis and as per the requirement of the office. Hiring and termination of services of part-time casual workers are done on actual requirement basis and on their performance and merit. Since the service of the petitioner was not required he was disengaged w.e.f. 14.01.2020. But those respondents have denied categorically that the petitioner's engagement was never uninterrupted as claimed. He was disengaged as per requirement. Hence, the respondents had not acted arbitrarily, illegally and unreasonably.

Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the office order dated 07.06.1998 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply] the casual workers like the petitioner are disengaged whenever their services are not required. As the petitioner does not have any right over the post and no action has been taken mala fide even though the allegation has been made that the termination is the outcome of persuasion of the spouse of the respondent No.3, but there no tangible proof, this court is unable to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner.

As consequence thereof, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.