Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Points for decision arises in this case are mainly whether M.R. Worker/Peon etc. engaged without following procedures, if continued for a long time, has any vested right to be regularized and/or continued in the service; and whether the authority has the power to withhold the wages of such a worker/peon, for the period he rendered service or discharged his duties on the basis of the instructions of the authority.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. HS Paonam, submits that after utilizing the service of the petitioner for a long period of about 9 years, the authority has no power/right to discontinue him as a M.R. worker even when his juniors were allowed to work. The entire action of the respondents, particularly, the Director Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Govt. of Manipur, respondent No. 2, is wholly unwarranted by law, more so violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. He also submits that even if, for the argument sake, it is admitted that the petitioner has no vested right to be continued as M.R. worker, but being an employee of lower strata has some expectation from the Govt. being a model employer, particularly when right to life includes right to livelihood. Learned Counsel of the petitioner further contended that, due to wrong action of the authority, particularly for issuance of discontinuing the order of engagement, livelihood of the petitioner is affected, which is unwarranted and not permissible under law. He also, tried to convince this Court submitting that Government, being a model employer, should not act like a private management and discontinue its employee/worker like the petitioner on all of a sudden when he is not able to be engaged himself in any other employment, in near future and his family members will be starved due to the wrong action of the State respondents. He finally submits that the respondents even did not follow the principles of natural justice at the time of passing the order of discontinuing of the engagement of the petitioner.

7. This Court also observed in the case of Smt. L. Memtombi Devi (Supra) that Govt. being an impersonal machinery and it cannot work by itself, it has to take decision and do work through its employees and officers. If any officer or employee acted contrary to the policy decision of the Govt. and provisions of the rules without following the normal procedures laid down for engagement, the responsibility for such wrong action cannot be fixed against the Govt. In the instant case, it is admitted position, as stated earlier, that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis without following the necessary procedures prescribed for selection and in terms of conditions of his engagement, the authority has the power to discontinue him as M.R. Peon. Doctrine of discrimination is applicable in a case where enforceable right of a citizen is existed. In the present case, the petitioner's initial appointment, being nullity, he has no right to be continued to the post for which he has been engaged, unless the authority extends the period of the engagement. Hence, violation of Articles 14 and 16, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not arise. This Court considers the case of Surinder Prasad Tiwari (Supra), as referred to by the State Counsel. After going through the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Surinder Prasad Tiwari (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the law relating to regularization/absorption of daily-wager, ad-hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee are no longer res integra and the said case has some bearing on the point and their lordships of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, expressed their views in a clear and unamibiguous manner relating to Constitutional scheme and stated that the Courts cannot continue any appointment of public office which has been made against the Constitutional scheme. In view of the aforesaid case also, the petitioner has no right to be continued, as a M.R. Peon, as his engagement has been made against the Constitutional scheme by the authority.

8. Regarding non payment of wages to the petitioner since December, 2002 till the date of discontinuing the engagement, this Court is of the considered view that the authority, after taking benefits of the labour of the present petitioner, has no right to withheld the same being a model employer. Court cannot allow the authority to withhold wages of an employee/worker, particularly a Muster Roll Peon, like the petitioner which, he is entitled, as he discharged his duties valid order and/or instruction of the authority. If such a wrong action of the authority is allowed to be continued, then that will be an injustice to the petitioner and the petitioner will become the victim of forced labour by a model employer which is totally unwarranted. However, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the order of discontinuance of the engagement of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Peon, but at the same time it shocks the mind of the Court that the poor petitioner, though served the State as engaged Muster Roll, he was not paid his wage as due, even after filing this Writ Petition till date which is unwarranted as stated earlier. A citizen has some expectation from the Govt., a model employer, when he discharges his duties as per the instruction of authority as engaged. In the instant case, the petitioner discharged his duties as Peon, i.e., a lower strata employee; he has more expectation than the expectation of the white colour people. But the action of the Govt. relating to payment of wages, evidently speaks that the authority tried to treat him as their bonded labour, which is unbecoming for a model employer. Hence, the respondents are directed to pay all the wages of the petitioner as due, for the period of and from December, 2002 till the date of his discontinuing the engagement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment and order.