Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mantu Ghosh & Ors vs The Raiganj University & Ors on 25 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 550 Ml 25.07.18 dt. 02.7.18
suman Ct.4 W.P.28730 (W) of 2017 Mantu Ghosh & Ors.
Versus The Raiganj University & Ors.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Mr. Gautam Thakur Mr. Anandamayi Ghosh ...for the petitioners Mr. Washef Ali Mondal ...for the University Mr. Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay, ld. J. S. Counsel Mr. Parikshit Goswami ...for the State The petitioners claim regularization of their services against Group -'C' and Group - 'D' posts in Raiganj University.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, two out of eleven petitioners have put in 10 years continuous service. Judgment of Supreme Court in Secy. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] while carving out an exception against bar of regularization also placed embargo on casual appointments being made. Petitioners were appointed by reason of administrative exigencies. Their appointments 2 and services were necessary as borne out by subsequent creation of posts against which they claim regularization. He submits further, in the least his clients are entitled to equal pay for equal work. He relies on another judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148. He submits, the University paying less wages to petitioners than regular employees doing similar work constitutes exploitative enslavement emerging out of domineering position. On regularization this discrepancy will automatically stand removed. Pending regularization petitioners remain contractual employees doing equal work but receiving less pay. He also relies on Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 233, to paragraphs 9 to 11 for entitlement to be regularized. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the University and relies on judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others versus Anita and Another reported in (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 293, to paragraphs 15 and 16. He then points out from Uma Devi (supra), in paragraph 45 Supreme Court had on the contrary said, a total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some 3 people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them.
He hands up a typical contract agreement of employment which, he submits, petitioners have bound themselves by. For this submission he relies on paragraph 19 in the writ petition. The agreement for contractual employment mentions G.O. 1107-F dated 25th February, 2016. This G.O. appears at page 97 in the writ petition. It is Memorandum by which consolidated monthly remuneration of contractual / casual /daily rated workers were provided for. On query from Court Mr. Mondal confirms, said Memorandum applies to petitioners. Application of said Memorandum to petitioners includes continuance in engagement up to age 60 years without termination except as prescribed in Memo 9008-F(P) dated 16th September, 2011.
It is noticed, in Anita (supra) Government had by resolutions notified intention to fill up posts on contractual basis only for administrative purposes which could not be held to be permanent posts. That fact situation is not involved here considering contractual employment seems to be admitted position of petitioners, though not against permanent posts but having application of Government 4 policy, to be entitled to continue in service and get scale of pay and remuneration as provided. Anita (supra) has no application to petitioners since they are covered by Government policy. This the University does not dispute.
At this juncture Mr. Bhattacharya submits, there should be direction for equal pay. To this Mr. Mondal submits, said Memorandum dated 25th February, 2016 is applicable as not challenged by petitioners. In Jagjit Singh (supra) Supreme Court had declared law regarding "equal pay for equal work" under facts of that case where petitioning temporary employees were performing same duties and responsibilities as regular employees. Petitioners here being covered by application of said Memo dated 25th February, 2016 cannot be said to be temporary employees. They are contractual employees entitled to work till they attain 60 years of age on terms and conditions prescribed by State.
With above observations writ petition is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha, J. )