Kamala Bala Barman vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1566 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010171982020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5076/2020

            KAMALA BALA BARMAN
            W/O- LT. GOLAK CH. BARMAN, R/O- ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION,
            QUARTER NO. ASZ/045(A), P.O. DISPUR, P.S. GEETANAGAR, DIST.-
            KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781005



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST
            DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

            2:THE CHIEF SECY.
            TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             DISPUR
             GHY-06

            3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
            ARANYA BHABAN
             PUNJABARI
             GHY-37

            4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
            ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
             GHY-05

            5:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
             ZOO H.Q. RANGE
            ASSAM STATE ZOO
             GHY-0

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J KALITA
                                                                      Page No.# 2/4

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

11.05.2022

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 & 5. Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel appears for respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner herein claims to have been appointed on compassionate ground after the petitioner's husband died-in-harness on 24.12.1992, while working in the Forest Department, Government of Assam. The petitioner's case is that she applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1993 by submitting an application in April, 1993 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was initially made to work on fixed pay basis with an assurance given to her that her service will be confirmed by the authorities on compassionate ground. The petitioner being a layman joined her post as fixed pay worker immediately in the year 1993 on fixed pay basis.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had time and time again reminded the respondent authorities to regularise her service and in this respect, the respondents had also made various communications. The petitioner's prayer is that the petitioner's service should be regularized as she has been working on casual basis since April, 1993.

4. Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 Page No.# 3/4

submits that the petitioner was never appointed on compassionate ground, though several communications dated 28.06.1993, 08.07.1996 and 01.12.2000 were issued, forwarding the case of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. He submits that the petitioner has been working as a fixed pay worker and she has been receiving all the emoluments and benefits of a fixed pay worker w.e.f. 01.08.2017. Mr. Bora further submits that service of the petitioner cannot be regularized, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Upen Das & 835 Others (WA 45/2014), which was disposed of vide order dated 08.06.2017.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has stated that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in April, 1993 and in paragraph 7 has also stated that the petitioner has been discharging her service on casual basis since April, 1993. The petitioner's prayer in the writ petition is to regularize the service of the petitioner, who has been working on casual basis, since April, 1993.

7. Annexure-6 of the writ petition is a Certificate issued by one Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo Division, Guwahti-05, which states that the petitioner has been working as fixed pay worker under Assam State Zoo Division since 01/01/1993. If the petitioner has been working since 01.01.1993 and the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment in April, 1993, it is quite apparent that the petitioner's service on 01.01.1993 was not made on compassionate ground. Further, the petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that she had been appointed on compassionate Page No.# 4/4

ground.

8. In the case of State of Assam vs. Upen Das & 835 Others (WA 45/2014), the Division Bench of this Court has held that Muster Roll Workers/Work-charged Workers and Casual Workers are not entitled to regularization of their services. The fact that the petitioner has also been working on casual basis has also not been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to allow the petitioner's prayer for regularization of her service.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant