PRANJAL DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners have joined together in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the primary contention and claim relating to regularisation of their service.

(2.) The facts projected in the petition are narrated briefly as hereunder.

(3.) The petitioners are having the qualification to be appointed as Graduate Teachers. The erstwhile Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL) was having a School in its campus at Namrup and pursuant to a recruitment drive, the names of the petitioners which were enrolled with the concerned Employment Exchange were forwarded. Pursuant to such forwarding, in the year 1994, the petitioners were appointed, however for a limited period of 40 days. It is the case of the petitioners that such appointments were extended from time to time and as on date, the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service. Subsequently, the duration of the appointment was enhanced from 40 days to 6 (six) months. The issue regarding regularisation of their service was taken up by the petitioners through the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh in the year 2014 and there was a proposal to the Management to fill up the existing permanent post from the enlisted ad-hoc teachers if they fulfil the required education qualification. It is contended that no action was taken pursuant to such recommendation. In the meantime, the HFCL was declared sick and under the aegis of the BIFR, a new company was incorporated namely, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL) which took over the unit at Namrup w.e.f from 5/4/2002. The matter was again taken up before the Regional Labour Commissioner, even after which no steps have been taken for their regularisation. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/06/2017 which however was withdrawn on 6/9/2018 with liberty to file afresh and accordingly the present petition has been filed.