Mgnrega Employees Association And ORS. v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WP.CT/4/2023 MGNREGA Employees Association and others Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. Billwadal Bhathacharyya Mr. Arijit Majumdar ... for the U.O.I (through virtual mode) Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration July 17, 2023 [AKB] Item No.9 The present application has been preferred challenging an order dated 2nd December, 2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 351/00387/2022.

Mr. Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/applicants submits that the members of the petitioner no.1, namely, MGNREGA Employees Association (in short, Association) are discharging duties and responsibilities of Programme Officer, Assistant Engineer, Accountant, Data Entry Operator, Gram Rozgar Sevak and Technical Assistants on contract basis. They are working and are entitled to get salaries at par with the other similarly circumstanced employees. The learned Tribunal did not address the issue pertaining to grant of equal pay for equal work to the members of the said Association. The learned Tribunal glossed over the said issue and did not return any finding on the same.

Mr. Arijit Majumdar, learned advocate appearing for Union of India submits that there is no infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in the present writ petition. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the Administration submits that the primary challenge in the original application was that the respondents are trying to replace the petitioners, who have been temporarily engaged, by adhoc

employees upon conducting a new selection process. The said issue has been duly addressed by the learned Tribunal and there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The learned Tribunal by the order impugned had, inter alia, observed that it is a settled principle of law that an adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee. Such an adhoc employee can be replaced only by another candidate, who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Before the learned Tribunal it was categorically stated by the respondents that they have not initiated any process regarding replacement of the petitioners, who are working on contractual basis in the MGNREGA Scheme.

Accepting such submission and without entering into the merit of the petitioners' claim, the original application was disposed of with an observation that it would be open for the petitioners to take appropriate legal course, if the exigencies of their disengagement arises in future. It appears that the petitioners' prayer for equal pay for equal work has been left open by the learned Tribunal. As the said issue of equal pay for equal work has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, it would be open to petitioners to agitate the said issue before the appropriate authority, if so advised and in accordance with law.

In the said conspectus no interference is called for in the present application.

With the above observations, the writ petition, being WP.CT/4/2023 is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)