← Library
High Court of TripuraWP(C)/381/2015dismissed

Chitta Ranjan Sarkar v. O.N.G.C. And ORS

2015-09-18Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra10 pages

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA W.P.(C) No.378 of 2015, W.P.(C) No.379 of 2015, W.P.(C) No.380 of 2015, W.P.(C) No.381of2015&W.P.(C)No.382of2015 InW.P.(C)No.378of2015 Petitioner: SriSadhanKumarDe,    

   

                   

 !

 ByAdvocate: "

   -Versus- Respondents: 1. TheOil&NaturalGasCorporation,

    #

 " $%&'   %

&  

 (  )$!  '

2. TheChiefManager(F&A)9CPFSection,   *

 +  )  , !  

3.TheAssetManager

+ ) ,  

  & +      ( -

./00 12* 4. TheDirector(Onshore),

 +   )   ,

    ( -  )

 5. SriGopalChandraDe,     4 



   56 # 

#  7

 

2 6. SriDilipDeb,   #    .

 + 

. !

7.SriBrajendraChandraDebnath,   ( #   

( 

. !

8.SriSankarAcharjee,   )

6      "    "  ## 

. !

9.SriKhokanKumarSaha,   %         

ByAdvocate:   InW.P.(C)No.379of2015 Petitioner: SriSudhirRanjanRoy, 

  &  

  

#

 +

 !

 ByAdvocate: "

   -Versus- Respondents: 1. TheOil&NaturalGasCorporation,

    #

 " $%&'   %

&  

 (  )$!  '



3 2. TheChiefManager(F&A)9CPFSection,   *

 +  )  , !  

3.TheAssetManager

+ ) ,  

  & +      ( - . /00 12* 4. TheDirector(Onshore),

 +   )   ,

    ( -  )

 5. SriGopalChandraDe,     4   

   56 # 

#  7

 6. SriDilipDeb,   #    

 + 

. !

7.SriBrajendraChandraDebnath,   ( #   

( 

8.SriSankarAcharjee,   )

6      "    "  ## 

9.SriKhokanKumarSaha,   %         

ByAdvocate:   

4 InW.P.(C)No.380of2015 Petitioner: SriMalinChowdhury,     <

 <(  =  

   

#  )6

  

 

6 ByAdvocate: "

   -Versus- Respondents: 1. TheOil&NaturalGasCorporation,

    #

 " $%&'   %

&  

 (  )$!  '

2. TheChiefManager(F&A)9CPFSection,   *

 +  )  , !  

3.TheAssetManager

+ ) ,  

  & +      ( - . /00 12* 4. TheDirector(Onshore),

 +   )   ,

    ( -  )

 5. SriGopalChandraDe,     4 



   56 # 

#  7

 6. SriDilipDeb,   #    

 + 

. !



5 7.SriBrajendraChandraDebnath,   ( #   

( 

8.SriSankarAcharjee,   )

6      "    "  ## 

9.SriKhokanKumarSaha,   %         

ByAdvocate:   InW.P.(C)No.381of2015 Petitioner: SriChittaRanjanSarkar,   

      %      

 !

 ByAdvocate: "

   -Versus- Respondents: 1. TheOil&NaturalGasCorporation,

    #

 " $%&'   %

&  

 (  )$!  '

2. TheChiefManager(F&A)9CPFSection,   *

 +  )  , !  

3.TheAssetManager

+ ) ,  

  & +    

6   ( - . /00 12* 4. TheDirector(Onshore),

 +   )   ,

    ( -  )

 5. SriGopalChandraDe,     4   

   56 # 

#  7

 6. SriDilipDeb,   #    

 + 

. !

7.SriBrajendraChandraDebnath,   ( #   

( 

8.SriSankarAcharjee,   )

6      "    "  #  

9.SriKhokanKumarSaha,   %         

ByAdvocate:   InW.P.(C)No.382of2015 Petitioner: SriBhusanChandraDebnath,     " " 

#

   7      &     

( 

 !

 

7 ByAdvocate: "

   -Versus- Respondents: 1. TheOil&NaturalGasCorporation,

    #

 " $%&'   %

&  

 (  )$!  '

2. TheChiefManager(F&A)9CPFSection,   *

 +  )  , !  

3.TheAssetManager

+ ) ,  

  & +      ( - . /00 12* 4. TheDirector(Onshore),

 +   )   ,

    ( -  )

 5. SriGopalChandraDe,     4   

   56 # 

#  7

 6. SriDilipDeb,   #    

 + 

. !

7.SriBrajendraChandraDebnath,   ( #   

( 

8.SriSankarAcharjee,   )

6      "    "  

8 ## 

9.SriKhokanKumarSaha,   %         

ByAdvocate:    BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA 

    :18.09.2015 4( +

 

  : Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER >  "

      

      [2]

    =

        

   # ((6(     

?  =

#      =

  #  $'8/9 :12; $'8/0:12; $'891:12; $' 892:12; $'89::12; [3]       (       

 

    

 #     =

    #  $'**0:12*=

=  # 6(  

9       1@1::12; 

  ).

    3 "16. The petitioners prayed for regularization inGroup9Dpostsandso,theirprayertoquash Annexure9P/9, the advertisement, is without any merit. The prayer of the petitioners for their absorption as a regular employee also cannot be directed by this Court in the writ petitionsincetheywereengagedcasuallyand notagainstanysanctionedpost.Ifanyfuture vacancy arises in Group9D services of ONGC, theregularizationofthepetitionersshouldbe takenintoconsiderationonprioritybasissince they have already acquired requisite qualification.Theyareworkingforlast 25/26 years without break and so, the respondents should take initiative, pursuant to their promise, for regularizing them in case of any futurevacancyarisesinGroup9Dposts." [4]  

  #   6(      

).

   =

  #   10 :12; =

 =  (   #   6(        101*:12;#

 



 #  3 "5. The purpose of    case was to ensurethatpeoplewhohavecomeinthrough thebackdoorarenotregularizedonlyonthe groundthattheyhaveremainedinservicefor more than 10 years. At the same time    judgment cannot be used by the employers that too employers who are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution to discriminate against such employees,notpaythemadequatewagesand not even considered them for regularization though they have served the employer more than 25 years. The State and Public Sector Undertakings(PSUs)areexpectedtobemodel employers.

 Even assuming that the original writ petitioners were not employed after following a proper procedure then also why should poor employees at the lowest grade suffer.TheappellantONGChasapparentlynot taken any action against their senior officials whoprovidedemploymenttotheseemployees against the rules.

10 the learned singleJudge was fullyjustifiedin issuingthedirections." [5] %   =

      =

=     $' **0  :12*       =   ( 1::12;  - .@ =

   >    ( 

 =    =

    

       

(  =      =

  

# 



  

 (



     6

       =

     =    6(        1@1::12;    $'**0:12*=

     = 

 =   !

 (      =

           #   6(        1@1::12;

   =

   (   >=  #   = 

 ).

    

  

  

 6(    1@1::12;   $' **0  :12* #         4   

    

( # 6(    101*:12;     10  :12; # 

  

    #

  .

(  

=#  = 

  JUDGE