Gauhati High Court
WA/212/2022 on 14 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010115142022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO.212 OF 2022
Smti. Kamala Bala Barman,
Wife of Late Golak Ch. Barman,
Resident of Assam State Zoo Division,
Quarter No.ASZ/045 (A), PO: Dispur, PS:
Geetanagar, District: Kamrup (M), Assam, PIN
- 781005.
........Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by the
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Forest Department, Dispur, Guwahati
- 781006.
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Aranya Bhawan, Punjabari, Guwahati -
781037.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State
Zoo Division, Guwahati - 781005.
5. The Forest Range Officer, Zoo H.Q. Range,
Assam State Zoo, Guwahati - 781005.
........Respondents
Page No.# 2/6
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.m. Chhaya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. J. Kalita, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. K.P. Pathak, Standing
Counsel, Forest Department.
Date of Judgment & Order : 14th November, 2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order
dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.5076/2020, the original petitioner/ appellant has preferred this
intra-Court appeal.
2. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the original
petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing
counsel, Forest Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1,
3, 4, & 5.
3. It is the case of the appellant that her husband died in
harness on 24.12.1992 while working in the Forest Department,
Government of Assam. It is also the case of the appellant that
after the death of her husband, she applied for compassionate
appointment in the year 1993 by submitting an application for
Page No.# 3/6
compassionate appointment and since then she was working in
the Forest Department, Government of Assam. It is, however, the
case of the appellant that initially she was given the work on fixed
pay basis and an assurance was given to her that her services will
be confirmed on compassionate ground. On the aforesaid factual
matrix, the appellant claimed regularization as she has been
working on casual basis since 1993.
4. Record indicates that time and again the appellant
approached the Government. However, as nothing was done, the
appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for an
appropriate writ, more particularly, because of non-consideration
of the representation dated 23.10.2020 filed by the appellant.
5. Record also indicates that the respondent authorities
filed a detailed affidavit-in-opposition and contended before the
learned Single Judge that the appellant has been working as a
fixed pay worker and she has not been appointed on
compassionate ground. It is specifically contended that having
been appointed in the year 1993 as a fixed pay worker after a
lapse of 27 years, now the appellant has claimed for regular
appointment on compassionate ground, which is not tenable. The
appellant also filed reply to the same.
6. The learned Single Judge after consideration of the
materials on record was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide
Page No.# 4/6
judgment & order dated 11.05.2022, against which the present
writ appeal has been filed.
7. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant has
reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge
and has submitted that the appellant applied for compassionate
appointment immediately after the demise of her husband, who
was working with the Forest Department of the State of Assam. It
was contended that the respondents have also appointed other
persons on compassionate ground. It was also contended that the
appointment of the appellant was not on casual basis but she was
appointed on compassionate basis and, therefore, the services of
the appellant should have been regularized.
8. As against this, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent authorities has supported the
impugned judgment & order. Mr. Pathak, relying upon the stand
taken by the respondent before the learned Single Judge,
reiterated that the claim is raised after 27 years. It was also
contended that the appellant as such joined as a casual worker in
Assam State Zoo and was appointed on fixed pay basis, which is
also admitted by the appellant herself and after so many years,
the appellant cannot be treated to have been appointed on
compassionate ground and claim for regularization. Mr. Pathak,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and no
interference is called for.
Page No.# 5/6
9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned
judgment & order, the facts reveal that the appellant joined service
as a casual worker in Assam State Zoo in the year 1993 after the
death of her husband. The record indicates that the appellant has
been working as a fixed pay worker since then. It is an admitted
position that the claim has been raised by the appellant after 27
years for regularization of her employment on compassionate
ground, which is rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is
also pertinent to note that the appellant has been receiving salary
under the head which is earmarked for casual fixed pay worker.
10. Compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of
recruitment in Government service, that too after 27 years of the
demise of the husband of the appellant. In relation to that, as the
facts reveal, the appellant has been working since 1993 as a
casual worker and hence even the element of die-in-harness does
not exist any more and even on her appointment as casual worker,
the same has been taken care of. The learned Single Judge has
observed thus in Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8:-
"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.
Page No.# 6/6
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 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.
11. In State of Assam -Vs- Upen Das & 835 Ors. (Writ
Appeal No.45/2014), a coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly
held that Muster Roll Workers, Work Charged Workers and Casual
Workers are not entitled for regularization of their service with
consequential benefits.
12. We are, therefore, in total agreement with the view taken
by the learned Single Judge and hence, no interference is called
for. The writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
