Supreme Court of India · 2012

7. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia and Ms. S.Kanungoe, learned Counsels for t he petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.Das, learned Standing Council, BTC, Mr. B.J. Gh osh, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Coun sel, Finance Department.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had continued their Muster Roll engagements for about fifteen years when the BT C authorities on due consideration of their cases decided to regularise their se rvices. That was in the year 2005. But inspite of that, due to non receipt of ap proval from the Finance Department, they have been denied the benefits of regula rization and are still being paid on daily wage basis. He therefore prays for ap propriate intervention of this Court by issuing necessary directions.

9. Learned Standing Counsel, BTC has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and further submits that the Finance Department should tak e a decision in the matter at the earliest.

10. Learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the Panchayat a nd Rural Development Department submits that the BTC authorities should have for warded the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioners throug h the administrative department i.e. the Panchayat and Rural Development Departm ent instead of directly submitting the same to the Finance Department. He howeve r submits that now the Panchayat and Rural Development Department has forwarded the proposal to the Finance Department and is awaiting its decision.

11. Learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department submits that no pro posal for regularization of the services of the petitioners is before the Financ e Department. As and when such a proposal is received, the matter will be looked into. He however submits that in view of the Apex Court judgment in Uma Devi (S upra), Finance Department may not be in a position to accord approval to such pr oposal.

12. The submissions made have been considered.

13. This Court in the course of hearing the two writ petitions have been monitoring the stand being taken by the respondents by passing orders from time to time. On 23-08-2010, this Court passed the following order :- (cid:28) As per the letter dated 26-03-2010 addressed to the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department by the Finance Department and also as recorded in the order d ated 11-06-2010, the matter is pending for want of necessary proposal from the P anchayat and Rural Development Department. In the letter dated 26-03-2010, it ha s been stated that the proposal earlier sent by the Panchayat and Rural Developm ent Department was lacking in required documents. Accordingly, the file was retu rned to the said Department by the Finance Department with its endorsement dated 23-06-2010. From the above, what is seen is that due to inaction on the part of the Panchaya t and Rural Development Department the matter has not attained its finality. If by the next date fixed, the Panchayat and Rural Development Department does not furnish the required proposal with supporting documents to the Finance Departmen t and in turn the Finance Department does not act in the mater in accordance wit h law, appropriate order will follow. (cid:29)

14. Again on 13-09-2010, this Court passed the following order:- (cid:28)From the above what is seen is that while it is the case of the Finance Departm ent that proposal has not been submitted by the P&RD Department to the Finance D epartment with required materials as called for vide Finance Department’s endors ement dated 23-06-2010 in P&RD department’s file No. PDB 182/2000, as per the sa id letter of the Deputy Director, P &RD Department, instructions are required to be obtained from the PD, DRDA, Kokrajhar and BTC authorities for which the lear ned State Counsel has been requested. The P&RD Department cannot absolve from th eir liability to furnish necessary proposal to the Finance Department by directi ng the State Counsel to obtain instruction from the PD, DRDA, Kokrajhar and BTC authorities. Whatever instructions are required to be obtained towards furnishing a proposal to the Finance Department, same shall be so done by the P&RD Department and in t he process, the PD, DRDA, Kokrajhar and BTC authorities shall fully cooperate by taking prompt action. (cid:29)

15. Ultimately, on 07-09-2011, this Court passed an interim order di recting that two Grade-IV posts sanctioned by the Finance Department should not be filled up.

16. On 13-02-2012, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department informed the Court that no proposal was received from the Panchayat and Rural De velopment Department and that it is for the said Department to take up the matte r with the Finance Department.

17. From the above, what can be seen is that there is some kind of a squabble going on between the three state instrumentalities viz., BTC, Panchaya t and Rural Development Department and Finance Department and in the process, th e case of the petitioners has not received any attention. Coming back to the petitioners, it is not disputed that the peti 18. tioners had continued as Muster Roll workers since the year 1990. They were cont inued as Muster Roll workers for about fifteen years without the intervention of any Court and without the benefit of any stay order of any Court or tribunal. T hereafter, they were appointed as office peon (Grade-IV) in their respective blo cks by separate but identical orders dated 05-08-2005 and 01-08-2005 respectivel y issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Kokrajhar. The appointments were however made subject to approval of the Finance Department. Following the above orders, the Deputy Secretary, BTC wrote to the Finance Department by letter dated 02-05 -2006 with copy to the Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Development Department requesting accord of financial approval for regularization and appointment of t he petitioners. The said letter is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- (cid:28) BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT ::: KOKRAJHAR No.BTC/P&RD-13/04/168 Dated Kokrajhar, the 2nd May, 2006 From : Shri A.K. Brahma, ACS Deputy Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar. To : The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance (SIU) Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. Sub. IV post in different Development Block. : Financial approval for regularization and appointment of Grade- Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you t hat some Grade-IV posts are lying vacant in different Development Block in Kokra jhar District. In this regard, I am to inform you that there are some employees who are working in the same Block as Office Peon on MR basis since 1990 & 1991. They ar e working on MR basis out of work engaged on MR basis. The BTC has already accor ded approval to the following 2(two) MR employees for filling the instant vacant post to accommodate them as regular employee. Name of Block Name of employee Designation Date of Joining Remarks

1. Kokrajhar Dev. Block Sri Ashok Kr. Sen Office Peon 01-10-1990

2. Hatidhura Dev. Block Sri Babul Roy Office Peon 02-11-1991 Therefore, you are requested kindly to accord financial approval for reg ularization and appointment of above mentioned MR employees at an early date. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible 02-06-2006 Deputy Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar Memo No.BTC/P&RD-13/04/168-A Dated Kokrajhar, the 2nd May, 2006 Copy to:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PS to Chief of BTC, Kokrajhar PS to Addl. Principal Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar The Director of Panchayat & RD, Assam, Juripar : Panjabari, Guwahati-37 The CHD, P&RD, BTC & PD, DRDA, Kokrajhar The BDO concerned for information. Deputy Secretary Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar (cid:29)

19. As the approval of the Finance Department has not been forthcomi ng, the petitioners have been continued on daily wage basis. Thus by now, the pe titioners have worked on daily wage basis for more than two decades. This is rea lly an unfortunate state of affairs.