HAR KAMAN LOHARI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with prayer to issue appropriate writ/writs setting aside and quashing the impugned order retiring the petitioner from his post of work charge employee and commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner without any break and to give him all consequential financial benefits.

(2.) In a nutshell, petitioner's case runs thus: The State of Arunachal Pradesh was a Union Territory in the past and its public works department was administered by the Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as "the CPWD"). In course of time, the CPWD was replaced by the State Public Work Department popularly known as the PWD. Way back in 1970-71, because of the difficult terrains and lack of communication facilities, it was difficult to find people to work as mazdoor in the said department. The CPWD, therefore, started engaging casual/non-regular workers for working at the work site of the projects undertaken by the CPWD and these workers used to be paid from the fund ear marked for the project itself and not from the salary accounts of the Government. This system gave birth to a new class of workers known as Work Charge Staff. Even after the CPWD was replaced by the PWD, the said system continued and, in course of time, the Government adopted the policy of regularizing the services of these workers from time to time against sanctioned posts created form employing this class of workers. In response to an advertisement published by the PWD, the petitioner applied for, and received, in the month of November, 1971, appointment as Work Charge Mazdoor, (hereinafter referred to as the "WCM (Non regular)", and was posted at Jairampur Division of the PWD. Since then, the petitioner has been working as WCM (non regular) with all sincerity and to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. Subsequently, a new department was created b> the Govt. known as Arunachal Pradesh Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as "the PHED"). After the petitioner had put in, without any blemishes 24 years of service as WCM in the PWD, the petitioner was transferred to, and absorbed in, the PHED as a Work Charge Employee (hereinafter referred to as "WCE") vide order No.CEAP(EZ)/JD/WO-l/95-96/3637-51, dated 28.09.95 (Annexure "A" to the writ petition), issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD. The petitioner accordingly joined his new posting, at Jairampur, and since then, he has been working there. Despite several representations made by the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were not regularized. On the other hand, to his utter surprise, the petitioner received an order contained in the letter No. PHED/CHG/WC/PF-8/96-97/172- 75, dated 29.04.2002 (Annexure "B" to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3, viz., Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh, informing the petitioner that he would stand retired, on 30.06.2002, on completion of 55 years of age as per Rule 48 of the CCS Pension Rules and in terms of FR 56 read with Clause 23.01 of the CPWD Manual Volume III. The petitioner has, thus, been compulsorily retired w.e.f. 30.06.2002. Though the petitioner had made several representation to the respondents for regularization of his services, the same have been arbitrarily turned down, as stated hereinabove, despite the fact that the petitioner, who had put in 31 years of satisfactory service, ought to have been confirmed by the State Govt. as a model employer. The petitioner has been removed from service malafide on account of the fact that he was claiming to be confirmed. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for setting aside and quashing the impugned order of his retirement on the ground, inter-alia, that the same is malafide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Though the respondents have contested this case, they have not filed any affidavit disputing or denying the averments made in the writ petition. In this view of the matter, this Court has to proceed on the premises that the facts stated in the writ petition are true and correct.