Work-Charged Employees
Editors’ Note
The respondents are work-charged employees under different government departments who filed different Writ Petitions in the High Court Division and obtained directions upon the writ respondents-petitioners to regularize/absorb their service in the revenue set up. The Government and others preferred different Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal which were dismissed as being time barred. Thereafter, the government and others filed these review petitions. Disposing of all the review petitions the Appellate Division observed that the service rendered by work-charged employees for a considerable period, like 20 years or more, may be considered to be permanent employees and they may be qualified for grant of pensionary benefit. Citing different measures taken by the different State Governments of India for work[1]charged employees, the Appellate Division further observed that the Government should formulate a policy instrument for giving pensionary and other benefits to the work-charged employees who have served without break for a considerable period of time i.e for 20 years or more.
Characteristics of work-charged employees: Work-charged employee is the one who is engaged temporarily and his appointment is made as such, from the very beginning of his employment till the completion of the specified work. Work-charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees. Further, the work-charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employer. ...(Para 11)
The service rendered by work-charged employees for a considerable period, like 20 years or more, may be considered to be permanent employees and they may be qualified for grant of pensionary benefit: Work-charged employees have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary but have also been deprived from the pensionary benefits as if services had not been rendered by them though the Government has been benefitted by the services rendered by them. The concept of work-charged employment has been misused by offering the employment on exploitative terms for the work which is regular and perennial in nature. The concept of equality as envisaged in the constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Therefore, the service rendered by work-charged employees for a considerable period, like 20 years or more, may be considered to be permanent employees and they may be qualified for grant of pensionary benefit, inasmuch as, pension is not a charity, rather, it is the deferred portion of compensation for past service. ...(Para 14)
To ensure Socio-economic justice the Government should formulate a policy instrument for giving pensionary and other benefits to the work-charged employees: After receiving continuous service for 20 years from a work-charged employee without break, if he is left in uncertainty over his future, that is wholly denying socio-economic justice and completely contrary to Fundamental Principles of State Policy as enumerated in part II of our Constitution. The Government should formulate a policy instrument for giving pensionary and other benefits to the work-charged employees who have served without break for a considerable period of time i.e for 20 years or more. All the authorities should take immediate appropriate action in that behalf. ...(Para 16) 16 SCOB [2022] AD 8
Absorption/regularization/Transfer to revenue budget
Work-charged employee
Though the appellant was appointed as a work- charged employee but no such permanent post was created in the project, so as to avail any scope for regularization of the appellant as per the circular/notifications. Though the circular or administration instructions have been specifically declared as order making rule contained in Memo issued by the authority, but the same may not be treated as statutory rules having no statutory backing, but no such regular posts being available for regularization, a work-charged employee could not be regularized inasmuch as no such promissory estoppel could be claimed under the circumstances. (Para-22, Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim). 25 BLD(AD)250: Md. Abdur Rahman Vs. Government of Bangladesh & another: Ref: 50 DLR(AD)27, PLD 1961(SC)105-13 DLR(SC)100, PLD 1964(SC)21-16 DLR(SC)58, PLD 1968(SC)97-20 DLR(SC)78, AIR 1986(SC)555, 1999 SCC 642, 2003 SCC 388, 5 SCC 388
