Shri Aloke Singh & Ors vs Indian Statistical Institute & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 82 Cal

Form No. J(2)

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                       Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

                              Appellate Side
Present :

The Hon'ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay

                                  WPA 692 of 2022

                               Shri Aloke Singh & Ors.
                                      -Versus-
                           Indian Statistical Institute & Ors.

     For the petitioners                : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty
                                        : Ms. Tanusree Das
                                        :



    For the Respondents                 :   Mr. Debapriya Gupta
                                        :

    Heard On: 14.01.2022
    Judgment On: 14.01.2022

     Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioners are the gardeners of Indian Statistical Institute (for short

'ISI') who started working as contractual employees in ISI from

2013.They were appointed through a recruitment procedure for which

advertisement was published in news paper. (vide page 25 A of the writ

application) From the documents it has been shown to me that in a

meeting of the outsourcing committee dated 25th November, 2016 the

recruitment policy was changed after going through the views of CAG

and legal views taken by ISI that the extension (of contract) may

continue till they attain the age of 59 years if they are physically fit and

medical test will be essential for that purpose. It is not at all the case of

the respondents including the Government that after this decision dated

25.11.2016 there is such change of circumstances whereby this decision

of the outsourcing committee taken on 25th November, 2015 is required

to be changed and the petitioners can be sent under some contractor for

the same job as has been decided now as shown to me by the

respondents to one Government labour contractor namely Kalpataru

Enterprise for one year. Against 59 years of age as was decided by the

outsourcing committee the petitioners are giving job for 1(one) year

service period. This is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.

A benefit granted to the contractual workers by a committee of the

autonomous body can never be changed to the detriment of the

beneficiary workers that too without taking their consent. This is wholly

illegal. Every citizen of this country has a status and prestige as human

being as guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution of India and their

life and prestige as a human being cannot be dealt with by some

powerful persons like pawns.

The documents in respect of sending of the persons for

contractual service under Kalpataru Enterprise instead of ISI are kept on

record.

2. No prayer for filing affidavit-in-opposition has been made by the

respondents and the matter is heard in extenso.

3. The minutes of the meeting of the ISI council dated 03.01.2022 in

respect of considering the matter relating to engagement of contractual

manpower shows that some Government officers are making comments

in respect of running of an autonomous institution as if from a higher

pedestal without giving any reason for their comments. Therefore, I do

no know what is the reason when it has been stated by the Chairman

that when the question as to contractual employee was sent to Ministry

of Statistics and Programme Implementation representative who clearly

said that continuation of employment on contractual basis period after

period is not correct( vide page 148 of the writ application).

Why it is not correct if the autonomous body decides that?

Again in page 148 of the writ application it appears that one

Government officer has stated that continuation of contractual

appointment in the way it has been done cannot be supported by the

Government.

Why it cannot supported? What is the reason? Cannot the

autonomous body have its own say and decisions in the matter?

There is no answer.

Again it appears from page 148 of the writ application that if

there are no regular posts and the services are required the services should

be outsourced.

Why the services should be outsourced? What is the

reason? Where is the financial involvement and analysis? Is expenditure

the only guiding factor in such cases? Service of human beings under a

protective umbrella of an autonomous body has no value to a welfare state?

And what will happen to the already taken decision of continuation of the

contractual employee till 59 years? When this decision has been overruled?

Why this decision of the said committee of the autonomous body will not be

respected?

There is no answer.

4. The minutes of the meeting dated 3rd January, 2022 and the decision

taken in the meeting as to outsourcing the job for which the petitioners

were engaged is wholly unreasonable. High handedness is no substitute

for reasoning. In an autonomous institution no Government officer can

dictate terms as if standing on a higher pedestal as has been done by

some Government Officers in the meeting dated 03.01.2022.

5. An autonomous institution has autonomy in its administration and in

its other functions. The Government cannot play the role of a modern

day Shylock by saying, as the Government is putting the money,

Government will control the autonomous institution in administrative

functions. This cannot be done in a country like India where a large

number of autonomous bodies are working for a long time. Where is the

declared policy which says that the Government will interfere into the

administration and other works of the autonomous body? Or such

interference would be done in an indirect manner? As the Government is

giving money it cannot say that it will control partially or in full an

autonomous body, the Government is duty bound to give the money

which is not anybody's personal money but the money of the people of

India collected from tax and other sources and the Government cannot

question the autonomy enjoyed unless there is very serious irregularities

in respect of the autonomous institution. No serious financial

irregularity has been shown here. Here some person would do the same

job but now not under ISI but under a Government contractor.

What is the purpose? Nobody has been able to explain it before me.

6. Further, I find that the breaks given in the contractual services of the

petitioners (vide paragraph 4 of the writ application) are wholly artificial

to save the rigour of law. What is the reason for giving such artificial

breaks except doing something indirectly when the same cannot be done

directly? If required, it could have been said to the contractual

employees that their services were not required. Instead of doing so, by

giving such artificial breaks after each contractual period to show the

employees before the law as they are contractual employees when their

duty is perennial in nature. Such artificial breaks given to the

contractual employees are not at all acceptable to this court which

exercises jurisdiction under the Constitution of India as it is unfair. In

favour of the petitioners a right has already grown, as the breaks were

artificially given for permanent absorption in ISI.Thus the petitioners

who are entitled to be absorbed in ISI permanently are being sent under

a government contractor for one year service. From annexure P-1 it is

evident that the appointment of the petitioners were not back door

appointments.

7. Hence, I wholly set aside and quash the resolution taken in the meeting

dated 03.01.2022 that ISI should procure the cooking and gardening

services by following the due procedure on GeM. In no circumstances

petitioners can be pushed to a Government contractor from the fold of

ISI. On the contrary ISI should consider with sincerity about giving

permanent employee status to the petitioners as artificial breaks were

given in their contractual periods from 2013 to 2021.

8. The petitioners shall work under ISI as they were working and under no

circumstances their services can be terminated without following the

decision of the outsourcing committee dated 25.11.2016 as to physical

fitness and medical test by the ISI and they cannot be transferred to a

contractor from the fold of ISI.

9. The writ application is allowed.

No costs.

LATER: The respondent ISI has prayed for stay of this order which is

considered and rejected.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)