Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010221852023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5807/2023 GANESH CHANDRA DEKA S/O- SRI UTTAM CHANDRA DEKA, VILL.- ATHGAON, P.O. HINGLEE, P.S. KAMALPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 781380 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, P.W.D. DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (MECH. DIVN) GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781007 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. (R AND B) MECHANICAL DIVISION GUWAHATI PIN- 781007 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. (R) GUWAHATI CITY DIVISION NO.II GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/6 PIN- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BHUYAN, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. R DHAR (R-1 TO R-5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. D. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to regularize the service of petitioner as have been done in other similarly situated persons for the post of a Roller Handyman in which post the petitioner claims to be working since 07.07.1992 on work charged basis. Since the petitioner’s case was not considered, he had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.4339/2018 and this Court by order dated 09.07.2018 disposed of the said writ petition by passing the following order: “It is submitted by the petitioner that he has been serving as Roller Handyman since 07.07.1992 on work-charge basis against a permanent vacant post under the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Express Highway, Sub-Division No. 1, Guwahati. It is also submitted by the petitioner that he was initially appointed in the said post as Roller Handyman on 06.07.1992 for a period of 2 (two) months on work-charge basis under the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Mechanical Division, Guwahati. Later, by an order dated 07.07.1992, he was transferred and posted under the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Express Highway, Sub-Division No. 1, Guwahati. The term of appointment of the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner as a work-charge Roller Handyman was further extended from time to time and by order dated 16.06.1993, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Mechanical Division, Guwahati, the service of the petitioner as a work-charge Roller Handyman was extended until further order in the same capacity. As his service has not been regularized till now, being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. In this regard, the petitioner has earlier filed representation on 05.04.2018 before the Chief Engineer, PWD (Assam), the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Assam, the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Mechanical Division, Guwahati and the Executive Engineer, PWD (R), Guwahati City Division No. II, which are still pending for disposal. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for regularization of his service as Roller Handyman as he is continuously serving in a vacant post since July, 1992. It is well settled that any such public post has to be filled up by due process of advertisement and selection in conformity with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has been serving continuously since July, 1992 against a sanctioned vacant post, but no such direction can be issued by this Court to regularize the service of the petitioner in violation of the provision of settled laws. However, as the representations of the petitioner dated 05.04.2018 are pending before the respondents in the PWD, the said respondents may consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law considering the fact that they have already opened the service book of the petitioner and that the petitioner is serving in a vacant post of Roller Handyman under the respondent PWD since July, 1992 without any break.“ 3. A perusal of the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Court in WP(C) No.4339/2019 reveals that there is a finding by the Coordinate Bench that notwithstanding the petitioner serving continuously since July 1992 in the sanctioned vacant post, no such direction can be issued by the Court to regularise the service of the petitioner in violation of the provision of the settled law. However, PWD authorities were directed to consider the representations filed by the petitioner in accordance with law considering that the service book of the petitioner has already been opened. Pursuant to the said order being passed, the petitioner not having received any consideration from the ends of Page No.# 4/6 the respondents has approached this Court for the second time. 4. The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition contesting the case projected by the writ petitioner. They referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the State of Assam vs. Upen Das and others reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493 to submit that in terms of the said judgment the regularization of Muster Roll Workers, Work Charged Workers and Casual Workers cannot be undertaken. However, the Court directed the State to implement the welfare measures like health, accidental and death insurance schemes which the learned Government Advocate had submitted before the Court that such measures are being sought to be undertaken in respect of those workers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the order of the Coordinate Bench is passed as far back on 09.07.2018 in WP(C) No.4339/2019 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the service of the petitioner has already been recorded in a service book, no such order has been passed by the respondent authorities and as such, the petitioner has not received any consideration at the ends of the respondents. 5. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD has placed before the Court a communication dated 30.01.2024 whereby the respondents have regretted Page No.# 5/6 their inability to regularize the service of the petitioner who was employed as Work Charged, Roller Handyman in view of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.06.2017 in WA no.45/2014 [Upen Das and others (supra)]. The learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly submits that a copy of this communication perhaps was not communicated to the writ petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the materials available on record, more particularly, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.4339/2019 by the order dated 09.07.2018 it is seen that there was a specific direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner in view of the services having been rendered by the petitioner. The communication dated 30.01.2024 issued by the Establishment-B Branch (Confidential Cell), PWRD does not reflect that the direction of this Court has been given effect to, inasmuch as, the communication does not reflect that the petitioner’s case has been considered by the Department keeping in view the service book that was opened in respect of the petitioner. 7. It is not disputed at the bar that the petitioner had rendered his services as a Work Charged Roller Handyman and any service book in respect of an Page No.# 6/6 employee can only be opened only if the said employee is in regular employment. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter will require reconsideration at the hands of the Department in respect of the writ petitioner specifically in terms of the earlier order dated 09.07.2018 passed in WP(C) No.4339/2019. The impugned communication dated 30.01.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents authorities to re- examine the claims of the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate order therein keeping in view that there was a service book opened in respect of the petitioner. This direction will be carried out within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant