Gauhati High Court
Lakshmi Kanta Kharkatary vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 3 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005002013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1287/2013
LAKSHMI KANTA KHARKATARY
S/O- HANGLA RAM KHARKATARY, R/O- SHEMALAGURI, P.O.-
HUDUKHATA, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF INDUSTRIES.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES
CIVIL INDUSTRIES OFFICER
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CIVIL INDUSTRIES OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GHY- 21
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.Z AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
03.10.2023.
Heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, who had filed
this writ petition in the year 2013 with a prayer for regularization of his service.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Work Charged
employee in the Industrial Area, Rani under the Department of Industry and
Commerce and claims to have been working for more than 25 years.
3. Ms. Borgohain, learned counsel, however, submits that she does not have
any contact with her client.
4. Shri A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce
Department submits that regularization can be done only if an incumbent meets
the requirement laid down by the notifications holding the field and by following
the principles mentioned in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3),
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
5. In the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 53 has held as follows:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in
Page No.# 3/4
paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant
posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work
for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or
of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the
light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise
as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts
that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion
within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any
already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
6. This Court has also noticed that while issuing Rule vide order dated
15.03.2013, there was no interim order granted.
7. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration that this matter is
pending for more than a decade and also taking a note of the prayer, the writ
petition is closed with a direction that any move for regularization of the
petitioner if undertaken, the same has to be done by following the principles of
law governing the field and the conditions laid down in Uma Devi (3) (supra)
Page No.# 4/4
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
