ABU HYAT Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/writ petitioner's father was a Muster Roll labourer in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Goalpara. Unfortunately the appellant's father died while working as Muster Roll labourer. By order dated 04.01.1997 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Goalpara (Annexure -3) the petitioner was appointed as Muster Roll labourer on casual basis. It is mentioned in the order that he was appointed on compassionate ground due to expiry of his father. This appointment was initially for a period of three months. By another order dated 03.04.1997 the services of the appellant as Muster Roll labourer was extended until further orders. However, by an order dated 25.08.1997 (Annexure -6) the appellant's service was terminated on the ground that his appointment initially was unlawful issued during the Ban period. The order reads as under:

(2.) THIS order was made the subject -matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.11.2000 dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge non -suited the writ petitioner on the basis of a judgment of this Court reported as Achyut Ch. Pathak and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. : 2000(1) GLT 243. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge has filed the present appeal.

(3.) WE have not been shown any document by which ban on appointment on Muster Roll for any period had been imposed. Even otherwise we can not countenance of a ban on appointments on muster roll. Inasmuch as, if such ban is imposed, perhaps quite a number of projects undertaken by the PWD authorities would come to a stand still. Works of the PWD are mostly carried out by muster roll appointees. No doubt. It is mentioned in the appointment order of the appellant that he was being appointed on compassionate ground but as observed above, there was no ban on appointments on muster roll and consequently the reason given in the order of termination of service in Annexure -6(supra) is not well based. We have also perused the judgment of the Division Bench (supra). That was a case where the Division Bench considered the scheme issued by the State Government, whereby certain persons who were appointed on Daily Wage/Work Charged/Muster Roll basis were made entitled for consideration for regularisation. However, such persons were to be those who had been appointed prior to 01.04.1993 in pursuance of the Circular dated 26.04.1995 (Annexure -7). The Division Bench held that appointees on muster roll/work charge basis etc. who had been appointed after had no right to claim regularization. The Division Bench upheld the fixation of the cut off date as 01.04.1993. The Division Bench, however, did not hold that there was a ban on muster roll appointments. The case was only regarding consideration for regularisation of certain employees as referred to above.