Bring scheme to improve working conditions of army porters: SC

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to come out with a suitable policy or scheme to improve the working conditions of 'army porters' who are utilised for carrying arms, ammunition and ration for soldiers and officers in hilly border areas.
The apex court while examining the plea for improving the service conditions of army porters, the number of which as per Centre's estimate is around 1000, said there employment should not be terminated during pendency of the matter.
A bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur gave three weeks to the Centre to formulate and file before it the draft rules and schemes for bringing out better working conditions of large number of porters in the army.

"The people in army know the utility of porters. So some light is needed at the end of the tunnel. They are in darkness. Show us for what period and years they have served army," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud observed.
Additional Solicitor General(ASG) P S Patwalia, said army has maintained the records of such porters since 2007.
"If the records of 10 years are maintained, they (porters) are entitled for some relief," the bench said and sought an assurance from the Centre that it would come out with a scheme to improve their conditions.

At the outset, Government said there are proposals to come out with the wage structure on the issue and examine the nature of work keeping in view the altitude at which these porters are deployed.

The ASG said the scheme would cover facilities like medical, accomodation, terminal benefits and compensation etc for porters and their family members.
Canteeen facility upto Rs 2000, leave encashment, festival grants and fund allocation for porters' children are also in the proposal.
"The proposals are under examination and will take three to four weeks for formulation," the law officer said, adding that the porters are employed where mechanical transport is not applicable and they carry goods weighing around 20 kg and their working hour is upto eight hours a day for 24-25 days in a month.

The bench said it would be wrong to say that only locals are appointed as porters and there are instances that people come from a distance of 200 to 300 km to take this job.
The apex court during the last hearing on July 22 had
stopped short of passing an order asking the Armed Forces Tribunal to examine the service conditions of 'army porters' who have been agitating with the Centre for regularisation of their services and sought the 'real picture' about them.
The court had framed questions for the tribunal to examine the issues plaguing the army porters, the civilian part of the army deployed in some sectors like Nowshera (Rajouri) in Jammu and Kashmir and northeast but the Centre had requested that it be given a week's time to analyse the aspect.

It had said it wanted the report of the tribunal on number of porters deployed by army, the condition of their employment and nature of work they are asked to perform.
It had said it would like the tribunal to examine the duration of hours the porters are pressed into service and their requirment for the security forces.
The bench had also framed the question about ammunition carried by the porters and wanted to know what type of records are maintained and can there be a way to improve the service condition.
The court had said the matter was being argued by senior advocate Bhim Singh, who is also chief of Panthers Party and is well-versed with the region.

Singh had accused the Centre of not complying with the 2013 order of the apex court.
The court had directed the Centre in May 2013 to consider within four months the plea of the army porters, who have been working for 15 years, for regularising them on the basis of their service record.
The porters had sought a direction to the Centre and the Ministry of Defence to regularise the services for those working for 15 to 25 years.
It was submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken note of their plea in its order on May 21, 2009, but rejected their claim while relying on the judgement of a Constitution Bench of the apex court.

When the porters appealed before Armed Forces Tribunal, it did not hear the matter on the dispute of jurisdiction.
The apex court, however, had said it was keeping the issue of jurisdiction open.