In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court addressed the contentious issue surrounding the termination of 22 contractual Executive Assistants in Purnea district, Bihar. These individuals were initially appointed under the Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission (BPSM) in 2013. Their services were abruptly discontinued in 2021 due to alleged financial constraints faced by the government. The court's decision not only reinstated these employees but also set a precedent emphasizing the importance of adhering to labor laws and ensuring fair treatment of contractual workers in government departments.
The genesis of this legal battle traces back to the appointments made under the BPSM, a mission aimed at administrative reforms in Bihar. The Executive Assistants were brought on board to facilitate data entry and other administrative tasks, crucial for the mission's success. Their roles, though contractual, were integral to the functioning of various departments. However, in 2021, citing a paucity of funds, the government terminated their services, leaving them in a state of professional limbo.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, presiding over the case, meticulously examined the circumstances leading to the termination. He noted that the petitioners had been diligently performing their duties since 2013 without any recorded instances of inefficiency or misconduct. The absence of any adverse remarks in their service records indicated that their termination was not performance-based but rather a consequence of administrative decisions.
A pivotal aspect of the court's deliberation was the 2019 government notification, which stipulated that Executive Assistants appointed under the BPSM were entitled to continue their services until the age of 60 or until the conclusion of the mission, whichever came earlier. This notification served as a protective clause for the contractual employees, ensuring job security and stability. The court observed that the 2021 decision to terminate their services contradicted the provisions of the 2019 notification, rendering the termination arbitrary and unjust.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the discriminatory nature of the termination. While the petitioners in Purnea were relieved of their duties, their counterparts in other districts like Ara and Araria continued in their roles. This inconsistency in treatment among similarly placed employees underscored a lack of uniformity in administrative decisions, violating principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.
The judgment also delved into the broader implications of outsourcing in government departments. Justice Chaudhuri emphasized that while outsourcing is a legally permissible practice, it must be executed in compliance with labor laws and regulations. Government departments bear the responsibility of ensuring that outsourced employees are treated equitably, with their rights safeguarded. The abrupt termination of the Executive Assistants, without due consideration of their service records and the protective provisions of the 2019 notification, was deemed a violation of these principles.
In light of these observations, the court directed the District Magistrate of Purnea to reinstate the 22 Executive Assistants by posting them in vacant positions across other departments of the state government. This directive not only reinstated the livelihoods of the affected individuals but also reinforced the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of contractual workers.
The implications of this judgment are manifold. Firstly, it sets a precedent for the treatment of contractual employees in government sectors, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to established rules and notifications. Secondly, it underscores the judiciary's role in rectifying administrative actions that contravene principles of fairness and equality. Lastly, it serves as a reminder to government departments about the importance of consistent and lawful decision-making, especially when it pertains to employment and livelihoods.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court's judgment in favor of the 22 Executive Assistants is a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of workers, ensuring that administrative decisions align with legal provisions and principles of justice. It reinforces the notion that contractual employees, despite the temporary nature of their appointments, are entitled to fair treatment and protection under the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.