The implications of the appointment being temporary, casual, or contractual, and the fact that such a person cannot rely on the notion of legitimate expectation to be confirmed in the position when an appointment to the job could only be made after a thorough selection method. The Court is compelled to rule that the petitioners are not entitled to any order from the Court requiring them to regularise their respective services. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Gauhati in the case of Rajkumar Kachari and 2 Ors. V. The State of Assam And 4 Ors [WP(C)/956/2016] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Kalyan Rai Surana.
The case of the petitioner is that the issue regarding non-regularization of the petitioners to the post of the driver in the Assam Tribal Development Authority (respondent) is involved. Therefore, as the case is ready as regards service and the respondent has filed their affidavit-in-opposition, at the insistence of the learned counsel for all sides, the matter has been heard in the admission stage.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that previously there was no vehicle allotted to the ATDA. However, subsequently, the ATDA had been given vehicles for various schemes and vehicles were allotted to various functionaries of the ATDA. Therefore, the petitioners were engaged in service as drivers. It is submitted that from time to time, communications were exchanged for sanctioning the creation of the posts of drivers and to regularise the service of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to monthly salary, after taking into account the due increments along with other financial benefits.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed this application by submitting that the Government had not accorded sanction for creation of the posts of drivers, as such, the Government cannot be burdened with the liability to pay monthly salary to the petitioners. The learned departmental standing counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent and he had made his submissions thereby supporting the claim of the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent has repeatedly sent proposals before the appropriate and competent authority of the State for according sanction for creation of posts of drivers and to regularise the service of the petitioners.
The learned court while referring to this court judgment State of Assam Vs. Upen Das wherein “it was held that petitioners are not found entitled to regularization of their services with consequential benefits such as a pension, etc. Accordingly the prayer for regularization is refused. “further, the Court opined that the State Government cannot be compelled to absorb the petitioners into the service of the State by paying salary and other emoluments. Thus, is not found to help the petitioners in any manner.”
