Gauhati High Court
Arabinda Boro vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 1 December, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010268702024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/189/2025
ARABINDA BORO
S/O LATE DEBEN BORO, NPTI COMPLEX, DAKSHINGAON, KAHILIPARA,
GUWAHATI 781019, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
POWER, NEW DELHI, PIN 110001
2:THE NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE
FARIDABAD
HARYANA.
3:THE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE
NORTH EASTERN REGION
DAKSHINGAON
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 781019
4:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR
NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE
NORTH EASTERN REGION
DAKSHINGAON
KAHILPARA
GUWAHATI 78101
Page No.# 2/11
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J PHUKAN, A DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 01-12-2025 (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J) Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 301/2014. The appellant has also assailed the order dated 12-11-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 155/2022, dismissing the same.
3. The appellant, herein, as petitioner had approached the writ court by way of instituting W.P.(C) No. 301/2024, inter-alia, praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to oust him from the service as driver of National Power Training Institute, Northeastern Region (hereinafter referred to as "the Institute") and to allow him to continue as a driver and or to regularize his services against a Gr-III or Gr-IV post in the organization. The appellant had also presented a challenge to a memorandum dated 31-12-2013, by which his contract was not extended further and the work involved was outsourced to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, Beltola w.e.f. 01-01-2014.
As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged by one M/s Mahesh Page No.# 3/11 Travel, Guwahati as a driver and was placed at the disposal of the Institute, Northeastern Region along with a vehicle. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties in the said capacity as an employee of M/s Mahesh Travel, Guwahati. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01-05-2009, the petitioner was engaged as a driver in the Institute, Northeastern Region on purely temporary basis. Such engagement of the petitioner was so effected on daily wage basis and the same was being extended from time to time. The authorities of Institute, having decided to outsource manpower service requisite in the institute, issued an advertisement on 22-09-2013, inviting bids from registered bidders for providing manpower services on contract basis for the institute. In pursuance to the said tender process, M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise was selected as a suitable bidder and vide a communication dated 09-12-2013, a Letter of Award (LoA) came to be issued in favour of the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise for supply of manpower on contract basis to the Institute at their quoted rates. On completion of the requisite formalities involved, the Institute, vide communication dated 19-12-2013, issued a work order to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise for supply of manpower service for a period of 01 (one) year w.e.f. 01-01-2014. On the engagement of said M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, a Memorandum dated 31-12-2013, came to be issued to the appellant, herein, informing him that the period of contract of his engagement as driver had ended on 31-12-2013 and as the Institute had awarded the contract involved to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, for supply of manpower, including drivers, his contract would not be further extended. It was stipulated in the said memorandum that the institute had instructed the contractor to engage the persons who were engaged earlier, on contract basis in the Institute and if the appellant wishes he can contact M/s Brahmaputra Page No.# 4/11 Enterprise to engage him. The said aspect of the matter was also stipulated, therein, to have been conveyed to the appellant during the meeting held in presence of the authorities of the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise.
The appellant being aggrieved had approached the writ court praying for the reliefs as noticed, hereinabove.
Considering the issue raised in the writ petition as well as upon hearing the parties to the proceeding, the learned Single Judge proceeded vide order dated 26-08-2022 to dismiss the writ petition holding that the appellant, herein, cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance in the matter.
The appellant being aggrieved had preferred a review petition being Review Petition No. 155/2022, praying for review of the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 301/2014 and the learned Single Judge upon considering the issues raised in the review petition, proceeded vide judgment and order dated 12-11-2024, to dismiss the same.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present appeal.
4. Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the appellant having been engaged in a temporary capacity as driver w.e.f. 01-05-2009, in the service of the Institute, his service could not have been terminated and he was required to be continued as a driver in the Institute. Mr. Phukan has further submitted that it was not permissible for the authorities to discontinue the service of the appellant and replace him by another ad-hoc or temporary Page No.# 5/11 employee. He submits that there was no recruitment process instituted by the institute for appointing driver on regular basis, towards replacing the appellant, herein, and accordingly discontinuation of the engagement of the appellant was illegal and arbitrary.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. At the outset we would notice that the present appeal was so preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 in W.P.(C) No. 301/2014 along with judgment and order dated 12-11-2024 in Review Petition No. 155/2022. However, the appellant has not filed any application praying for condonation of delay occasioning in instituting the appeal, assailing the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022. However, considering the nature of the grievance raised in the present proceeding, we are non-suiting the appellant on the ground of non-filing of application for condonation of delay occasioning in the matter and would examine the issue arising in the appeal, on its merit.
7. As noticed hereinabove, the appellant was engaged as a driver by the institute w.e.f. 01-05-2009 on a daily wage basis. Such engagement of the appellant was being extended from time to time. The Institute having arrived at a decision to outsource the manpower services required by them, a notice came to be issued inviting bids from the registered bidders for providing manpower services on contract basis for the Institute. On processing of the bids so received in pursuance to the said NIT dated 22-09-2013, M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise was selected as the suitable bidder and accordingly, LoA came to be issued to it on 09-12-2013. Thereafter, on completion of the formalities involved, a work order for supply of manpower services came to be issued to M/s Brahmaputra Page No.# 6/11 Enterprise on 19-12-2013. Amongst the services so required to be provided, also included the requirement of providing a Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver and a Light Motor Vehicle Driver. In the communication dated 19-12-2013, it was further stipulated that current manpower of the institute employed on contract basis, shall be utilized to the extent possible for executing the contract. The said development having taken place, the authorities of the Institute, proceeded to issue the Memorandum dated 31-12-2013, to the appellant, herein. Vide the said memorandum, the appellant was informed that his contract had come to an end on 31-12-2013 and in view of the fact that the contract for supply of manpower, including, drivers was awarded to the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, his contract would not be further extended. It was also stipulated in the said memorandum that the Institute had instructed the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, to engage the persons who were earlier working on contract basis with the Institute and the appellant may contact M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise for his engagement in the contract. The said memorandum being relevant is extracted here-in-below:-
No. NPTI-NER/Admn./13-14/(MPS)/PER(AB)/1572 Date: 31/12/13 MEMORANDUM It is hereby informed that the period of contract of Shri Arabinda Boro engaging him as Driver purely on contract basis ended on 31-12-2013 Now, NPTI-NER, Guwahati has awarded contract to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, Beltola, Guwahati w.e.f. 01-01-2014 for supply of man-power including Drivers. As such no further extension of contract of Shri Arabinda Boro will be considered.
However, as a good gesture, NPTI-NER has Instructed M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise to engage the persons who were working earlier contract Basis With NPTI-NER. Hence, Shri Arabinda Boro is hereby informed that it he wishes ne can contact M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise to engage him in this Contract. The same had been conveyed well to him during the meeting held on 23-12-2013 in presence with M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise.
This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority.
8. The materials brought on record would reveal that after engagement of the Page No.# 7/11 appellant, herein, w.e.f. 01-05-2009 on contract basis, his services were being extended from time to time and he was authorized a daily wage, which was enhanced from time to time. The said contractual engagement of the appellant came to an end w.e.f. 31-12- 2013, in terms of the memorandum dated 31-12-2013. It is thereafter that the appellant had approached the writ court praying for extension of his contractual services with the institute as a driver.
9. The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues arising in the writ petition was pleased to draw the following conclusions:-
"[7.] As may be noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that he was working for the NPTI through a travel agency since the year 2006 and thereafter, directly under the NPTI w.e.f., 01.05.2009 till the time the impugned memorandum was issued on 31.12.2013. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has annexed documents issued by the NPTI such as supply order of vehicle for hire, deduction of sales tax communicated to the travel agency and also testimonials stating that the petitioner is employed temporarily by NPTI, Guwahati as driver. The respondents on their part have also annexed documents such as O.M dated 27.04.2009 by which, on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner on 17.04.2009, he came to be engaged on daily wage basis @ Rs. 150/- per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 4500/- a month. The initial engagement was for 3 months w.e.f., 01.05.2009 and that his service was terminable at any time without assigning any reasons whatsoever, by giving 15 days notice. Orders extending his service for 6 months from the specified date were issued on similar terms vide Office Orders dated 13.01.2010, 29.07.2010 & 28.07.2011 which are marked as Annexure-2, 3 & 4 respectively in the counter affidavit. The respondents have also annexed the declaration made by the petitioner that he is ready to serve the organization/NPTI as driver w.e.f. the date specified purely on temporary basis and on daily wage and that he will not refer the engagement for regularizing his service. The respondents have also annexed a Communication dated 11.09.2013 made to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise communicating the letter of award for providing man-power services on contract basis and also a work order dated 19.12.2013 issued to the same agency for supplying the man-power specified in the said letter.
[8.] From the appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and importantly, the pleadings and the documents annexed in the writ petition, it can be seen that the petitioner was engaged by a travel agency Page No.# 8/11 in the year 2006 and he was assigned the work of a driver with the NPTI, Guwahati. While he was working as such, he came to be engaged by the NPTI on a daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.05.2009. The engagement of the petitioner was initially for a period of 3 months w.e.f. 01.05.2009 but was extended for time to time till the impugned Memorandum dated 31.12.2013 came to be issued. Although the petitioner claims that he is a casual and temporary employee but his engagement order otherwise indicates that he has been engaged on daily wage basis and for a specific period of time. In other words, the nature of such engagement is only contractual. The condition given in his engagement order that his service may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever by giving 15 days notice can only be construed to be a notice if his engagement was to be cut short i.e., before completion of the engagement period of either 3 months or 6 months as indicated in the engagement order.
[9.] The Apex Court in Piara Singh & Ors. (supra) in the given facts of that case held that an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by a regular selected employee. However, if an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly wrong time, the authorities should consider his case for regularization provided that he is eligible and qualified according to the rules with satisfactory service and that such an appointment does not run counter, reservation policy of a State. Coming to the present case, the petitioner has not been replaced by another contractual or for that matter, temporary employee. The NPTI has been availing the services of travel agency and other man-power agency to cater its requirement and the petitioner happens to be one of the drivers employed by such agency. Although, the petitioner came to be engaged by the NPTI on daily wages but as already noticed herein above, the same was only for a specific period of time and is therefore, a service rendered on contractual basis. Therefore, the case referred to by the petitioner is not found to be applicable to his case.
[10.] In the case of Somesh Thapliyal (supra), the Apex Court observed that he bargaining power is vested with the employer and the employees left with no option but to accept the conditions dedicated by the authority. It is, therefore, true that the undertaking given by the petitioner cannot prevent him from claiming a regular employment or regularization. However, the fact remains that his employment/engagement was on a fixed pay and for a specific period and therefore, the employer is not bound to give him a regular employment by regularizing his service.
[11.] As for the case of Neha S/o Suresh Patil (supra) and R.K Angousana Singh (supra) in view of the fact that it has already been held in the preceding paragraph that the issuance of 15 days prior notice before termination would only arise if the engagement of the petitioner was to be stopped before completion of the specific engagement period provided, the two decisions relied upon therefore are not found to be applicable.
Page No.# 9/11 [12.] Upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety and in view of the findings arrived at herein above, the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance and accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. No cost."
10. The appellant, thereafter had instituted a review petition being Review Petition No. 155/2022, praying for review of the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 301/2014. The learned Single Judge upon considering the grounds of review as urged in the review petition, proceeded vide judgment and order dated 12-11-2024, to dismiss the same by holding that the ground so raised in the review petition was already duly considered by the Court in the writ petition and also recorded in the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022. The learned Single Judge, accordingly dismissed the said review petition.
11. We have perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 26-08-2022 and we are of the considered view that the conclusions so drawn are well reasoned and no perversity is found to exist, therein. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, was also relied upon before the learned Single Judge and is found to have been duly considered in the impugned judgment dated 26-08-2022. We do not find any infirmity with regard to any conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 26-08- 2022, with regard to the decisions relied upon by the appellant, herein. Accordingly, in our considered view the impugned judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 along with the judgment and order dated 12-11-2024 passed in Review Petition No. 155/2022 would not call for any interference. Further the impugned order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the Page No.# 10/11 learned Single Judge, in our considered view does not suffer from any perversity.
12. At this stage, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee , reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 232, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-court appeal, the finding of fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the appellate bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has been further held that merely because another view or a better view is possible; there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
13. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 26-08-2022, and the view taken by the learned Single Judge being a plausible view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 26-08- 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 301/2014, would not warrant any interference.
14. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Page No.# 11/11
Comparing Assistant