Gaon Panchayat Secretary's Regularisation Claim Is Not Recommended; Court Upholds Rejection but Directs Salary Verification

A single-judge bench of Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair heard a writ petition challenging the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development's order dated 29.05.2013 which rejected the petitioner’s claim for regularization as Gaon Panchayat Secretary and sought release of arrear wages. The issue before the Court concerned whether the petitioner, who had been engaged as Secretary-cum-Accountant in 1994, could be regularised in light of competing appointment records, statutory provisions and a long delay in pressing his claim.

The Court upheld the impugned order of 29.05.2013 and found that the petitioner’s claim for regularisation could not be recommended. The judge noted that the record showed an appointment made by the Secretary of the Mahkuma Parishad and relied on the legal position that the Gaon Panchayat did not possess power to make appointments under Section 30(4) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The Court found that the petitioner had not challenged the competing appointment and had delayed pursuing his claim after earlier proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam, for the purpose of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for regularization as Gaon Panchayat Secretary had reasoned that the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the Kazigaon Gaon Panchayat by its President and thereafter, the Secretary of Mahkuma Parishad Dhubri had appointed one Shri Prasenjit Sen to Kazigaon Gaon Panchayat as its Secretary vide order dated 08.10.1993. It was held that under the provisions of Section 30(4) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the Gaon Panchayat is not vested with any power to make appointments or engage any person against any post in the Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner not having been appointed by, the Secretary, Mahkuma Parishad Dhubri, his case could not be recommended for regularization along with that of other persons appointed as Secretary in various Gaon Panchayats of the State. It is to be noted that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Dhubri, vide his report dated 04.08.2012 had clearly brought on record that one Shri Prosenjit Sen was appointed by the Secretary of the Mahkuma Parishad Dhubri. The said report of the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Dubhri has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, in spite of the fact that he was in the know how, that the authorities had appointed one Shri Prasenjit Sen as the Secretary in Kazigaon Gaon Panchayat, the petitioner, in the present proceedings had not dealt with the said matter nor had presented a challenge to the appointment so made in respect of Prasenjit Sen. In absence of a challenge to appointment made in respect of said Shri Prasenjit Sen, the claim of the petitioner for his continuance as the Secretary of Kazigaon Gaon Panchayat cannot be considered.” The Court further described the petitioner’s entitlement claim as “a stale one” given the unexplained delay after the 2005 disposal of an earlier petition.

Background The petitioner was engaged by the Kazigaon Gaon Panchayat President on 07.03.1994 as Secretary-cum-Accountant and asserted continuous service until 2003 when the area was placed under BTAD administration. He earlier instituted WP(C) No. 5369/2000; this Court on 21.12.2005 directed the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development to consider the petitioner’s grievance and to verify any arrears claimed from April 1995. The petitioner submitted representations in 2011 and 2012 seeking consideration for regularisation against two vacant Secretary posts that arose in 2010; the Commissioner, after reviewing a report from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Dhubri noting an appointment of Shri Prasenjit Sen by the Mahkuma Parishad, rejected the regularisation claim on 29.05.2013. The Commissioner held that vacancies arising after government regularisation exercises must be filled in accordance with existing rules and could not be used to regularise persons previously engaged ad hoc. The High Court agreed that the petitioner had not challenged the competing appointment, that there was no satisfactory explanation for delay in pursuing the matter post-2005, and that he ceased to be an existing employee. The writ petition was dismissed insofar as regularisation was concerned, but the Court retained the 2005 direction on arrears: it directed the petitioner to submit a representation detailing the period of service with supporting material, and directed the Commissioner to verify the claim and, if due, to ensure that wages/salaries for verified periods be released from Panchayat funds forthwith.

Case Details: Case No.: WP(C)/5443/2013 Case Title: Hirendra Nath Singha v. The State of Assam & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. F. U. Borbhuiya For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. Biswas, Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department; Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel, Finance Department