Bombay High Court: In a writ petition seeking inter alia relief of regularisation and all service benefits, the division bench of M.S. Sonak* and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ. denied the relief of post facto regularisation. and directed the State to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to compensate the petitioner for violating her rights.
The petitioner was engaged in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Goa since 1998 for cleaning and sweeping of the office premises and toilets. Her pay scale ranged from Rs 600 in the initial days up to Rs 4,950 per month during 2015-17, paid from the contingent fund or office expenses, until she voluntarily discontinued her engagement after almost 26 years.
The Petitioner’s representation in Joaquina Gomes E. Colaco v. State of Goa, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1488 was rejected by the State Government for the very reason that the petitioner’s engagement was neither contractual nor Nominal Muster Roll (‘NMR’) employment. Thus, the petitioner came up with the present petition seeking regularisation and all service benefits.
The Court referred to communication dated 28-02-2013 addressed by, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to the Joint Secretary (Personnel) to formulate a scheme for granting temporary status to the daily wage workers of the Government of Goa who have rendered service for at least five years, which has not been validly considered as per records.
The Court took note of the division bench’s decision in a case having identical circumstances, directing regularisation and retirement benefits in the favour of petitioner’s grandmother. However, the Court said that the relief granted in the above matter cannot be granted in petitioner’s favour because of the legal changes introduced for regularisation in Government service and her voluntary disengagement from the work. The Court relied upon State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899 to decline the relief of post facto regularisation.
However, the Court observed that the State should compensate the petitioner for exploiting the Petitioner for over two and a half decades, violating her rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India, taking advantage of the petitioner’s circumstances and apparent inequality in bargaining power. As per records, the wages paid to petitioner were much less than even the minimum wages paid to manual labourers engaged by the Public Works Department or other Government departments.
The Court said that “It is apparent that the State Government breached the Petitioner’s right not to be treated in such an arbitrary fashion and her right to life and dignity. The State Government has also breached the Petitioner’s human rights…. The State is liable to compensate the victim for violating fundamental rights or human rights.”
The Court placed reliance on People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 for awarding compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also mentioned Mukesh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1313 and Rajpati Devi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 93 FLR 1032 (Pat) wherein the petitioners have been paid paltry amounts and the same has been held as amounting exploitation and a breach of the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, theCourt denied the relief of regularisation of services, anddirected the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs in favour of the petitioner within two months carrying an interest at7% per annum after expiry of the given period.
[Joaquina Gomez E. Colaco v. State of Goa, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 285, decided on 1-02-2023]
*Judgment by: Justice M.S. Sonak.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. D. Lotlikar, Advocate T. Sequeira, Advocate S. Kenny;
For Respondent State: Advocate Sapna Mordekar.
