Rakhi Basfor v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER

19.08.2024. Heard Shri FZ Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri CK Sarma Baruah, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri J Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam.

¶2Considering that the pleadings have been exchanged and also the subject matter, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶3As per the facts projected, the petitioner was engaged as a part-time Sweeper in the Lala Circle Office on 17.12.2020 and claims to have been discharging her duties regularly. It is submitted that no monthly remuneration has been paid and on that issue, representations have been submitted on 02.06.2021 and 21.09.2021. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Circle Officer had duly forwarded the representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. However, remunerations have not been released and rather, the Deputy Commissioner has suggested the Circle Officer to move the Directorate of Land Records, Assam for budget allotment.

¶4Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute to the duties and services rendered by the petitioner as Sweeper and therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to release her remuneration.

¶5Per contra, Shri Sarma Baruah, learned State Counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 20.11.2023 has submitted that there is no record in the office regarding such appointment. By referring to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it is submitted that the engagement of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner as part-time Sweeper was purely local one for cleaning the ground floor and occasionally, the bath room. The remunerations were paid by willing contribution of the employee of the office and the arrangement was purely private one. He submits that mere forwarding of the representation of the petitioner by the then Circle Officer will not vest any right upon the petitioner.

¶6Shri Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department while endorsing the submissions of the learned State counsel has additionally submitted that the Director of Land Records, Assam would not have any significant role in this adjudication process.

¶7Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder has referred to a notification dated 31.08.2022 of the Labour Commissioner to substantiate his claim.

¶8The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have also been carefully examined.

¶9The claim is based on the engagement of the petitioner as Sweeper in the Lala Circle Office on 17.12.2020. Admittedly, there is no formal order of appointment. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 has also clearly stated that there is no official record of any such engagement. There is, however, a candid disclosure that there has been an engagement of the petitioner by the employees to sweep the ground floor and also the bath room occasionally and the honorarium was paid on contribution willingly made by the employees. It is clearly stated that the arrangement was a local one which was made only to maintain cleanliness of the office. The engagement of the petitioner for the cleaning works cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to be any formal order of appointment. The arrangements appear to be a purely private one to maintain the cleanliness of the premises for which, the Page No.# 4/4 payment has been made by willing contribution of the employees. Such arrangement cannot give any right to the petitioner to claim salaries from the Government coffers. If the petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of any honorarium or remuneration for the period where she claims to have discharged her duties, she can approach the appropriate forum against those persons for whom, the services have been rendered but not against the State in absence of any order of appointment.

¶10So far as reliance upon the notification dated 31.08.2022 of the Labour Commissioner is concerned, a reading of the same would clearly reveal that the same pertains to workman employed through contractors who are under the Minimum Wages Act, 1984 or not covered under the said Act. The said notification will not have any application in the present case.

¶11In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010151862023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4044/2023o RAKHIoBASFORo W/OoLATEoAJIToBASFOR,oR/OoLALAoTOWN,oWARDoNO.o2,oP.O.oANDoP.S.- LALA,oDIST-oHAILAKANDI,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY,oFINANCEo DEPARTMENToTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDISPUR,oASSAM,oPIN-781006 2:THEoDIRECTOR oLANDoRECORDSoANDoSURVEYS oRUPNAGAR oGUWAHATI-32 3:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONER oDISTRICToHAILAKANDI oASSAM 4:THEoCIRCLEoOFFICER oLALAoREVENUEoCIRCLE oLALA oDIST-oHAILAKANDI oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoFoZoMAZUMDER,o AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oFINANCE,oGA,oASSAM,SC,oREVENUEoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI