BENOMALI BAURMAN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing the learned counsel of both the parties, it appears to me that the present writ petitioners 7 in number sought for enforcement of their fundamental and other legal rights with a direction to the respondents to regularise their services coupled with a prayer for quashing the impugned order of termination dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Engineering Wing, Department of Health Services, East Khasi Hills, Shillong as in Annexure-I to the writ petition.

(2.) Supporting the case of these writ petitioners, Mrs M. Kharkongor, learned counsel contended that the writ petitioners were duly appointed by the respondent No. 4 namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Engineering Wing. Directorate of Health Services, Shillong as Muster Roll workers under the respondent-Deptt. since the year 1989 in case of petitioner No. 1 year 1990 in case of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, year 1992 in case of the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and, year 1993 in case of the petitioner No. 7 and since then they have been rendering their services as on today even though the impugned termination order was issued, this Court by virtue of an ad-interim order allowed these petitioners to serve as Muster Roll workers as on today under the respondents- Department. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that instead of issuing the impugned order of termination dated 11.8.1999, the respondents concerned ought to have considered the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services and even, ought to have afforded the equal pay and status to them like those regular employees who have been rendering the same services under the respondents-Department in terms of the related decisions of the Apex Court and this Court reported in (1) AIR 1996 SC 584, (2) AIR 1997 SC 449, (3) (1998) 3 GLT263 Debendra Nath Bora- Vs-State of Assam & Oirs., (4) (2001) GIT 644 Anil Kr. Bhttacharyya-Vs-Union of India, and (5) (2001) 1 GLT 326: Lalneihzovi & Ors.-Vs- NEHU & Oirs.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr N.D. Chullai, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents contended that these petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis without any appointment being issued to them on the requirement of the Department and due to lack of stack-non plan Fund from which the expenditure of payment of Muster Roll is met, the petitiones were issued with termination letters. Supporting the case of the State respondents. Mr Chullai, learned counsel argued that the High Court cannot direct regularisation of the services of these petitioners as they are daily wager. Supporting this argument, Mr Chullai, learned counsel had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab- Vs-Sardar Singh, reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1528 and submitted that these writ petitioners have no right to claim for regularisation of their services.