GUWAHATI, India, July 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 18:
1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
2. The petitioners, herein, have instituted the present proceeding, praying for the following reliefs: "In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship's may be pleased to consider this petition, admit the same, call for the records and Issue Rule nisi upon the respondents as to why: - (A) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing and/or commanding the respondents to immediately release wages of the petitioners with effect from 14.01.2019 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the wages with arrears at the minimum of the pay-scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale as extended to regular employees, holding the same post; (B) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued to the respondents to consider regularisation of services of the petitioners.
AND
Cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other or further order (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
AND
Pending disposal of Rule, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to work on casual basis and to pay them current wages."
3. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioners, herein, were engaged as Casual Office Staff on various dates in the Office of the District Rural Development Agency, Cachar. The petitioners on their such engagement, were being extended with a fixed pay. The materials brought on record would go to reveal that the petitioners, herein, were engaged for the works of Computer Assistant-cum-Clerk as well as of Driver. The petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, herein, were so engaged in the year 2005, whereas, the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, herein, were so engaged in the year 2012 and 2015.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpHc3RA5wi3mqBVu4t%2BQjv4w13ygsF92hAg56xc7Y9EAI&caseno=WP(C)/1314/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010047442023&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
