BANESWAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the Manager, District Poultry Farm, Tezpur under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department of the State of Assam. The aforesaid appointment was made sometime in the year 1973. The petitioner claims to have continued to work in the said capacity and in the same establishment, i.e., of the Manager, District Poultry Farm uninterruptedly and without any break until the year 1985. By an order dated 30.6.1985 he was transferred and appointed in the office of the Research Officer, Coordinated Poultry Breeding Project, Tezpur. Thereafter, by an order dated 4th of April, 1988 he was appointed as a L.D.A. -cum -Typist on a regular scale of pay but against a leave vacancy. The aforesaid appointment was in the same establishment, i.e., office of the Research Officer, Coordinated Poultry Breeding Project, Tezpur. According to the petitioner, he continued to work in the said establishment until sometime in the year 1994 when his service was discontinued. A certificate dated 1.8.1998 issued by the Research Officer, Coordinated Poultry Breeding Project, Tezpur, which has been enclosed as Annexure -IX to the writ petition, makes it amply clear that the petitioner had worked as a muster roll/casual employee from 1.9.1973 until 19.4.1994 when his service was discontinued. After making several attempts to secure reinstatement in service and thereafter regularization as well as arrear pay, which is contended also to be due to the petitioner for service rendered, the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2000.

(3.) THE facts of the present case would go to show that the petitioner had rendered nearly 21 years of service in the Veterinary Department. Even in terms of the Circular dated 20.4.1995, which though had come subsequent to the disengagement of the petitioner, an equitable right of fair consideration of such cases for regularisation has been virtually admitted by the Government. The Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that many such employees who have rendered such long years of service on fortuitous basis have been regularised by the State. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is inclined, in the facts of the present case, to recognise a legally enforceable right in the petitioner to obtain equitable relief at the hands of the Court.