Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010204812021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6615/2021
AKBAR ALI AND 3 ORS.
S/O LATE SYED ALI
VILL- NO. 2, MADHAB GOHAIN,
P.O. BECHIMARI,
DIST. UDALGURI,ASSAM, PIN-784514
2: SRI BHUBANESWAR KALITA
SON OF LATE GOBINDA RAM KALITA
VILL- HAHARA
P.O. PUTHIMARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
3: SRI DIPAK DAS
SON OF LATE HALIRAM DAS
R/O AZARA KONAPARA
P.O. AZARA
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4: SRI RAJAT HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE LALIT HAZARIKA
VILL- BAHUPARA P.O. RANI P.S. PALASHBARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
ASSAM
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
ASSAM
4:THE COMMISSIONER
P AND RD DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
PANJABARI ROAD
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-78103
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
29.06.2022
Heard Mr. D Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. NK
Devnath, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 4 being the authorities
under the P & RD Department, Government of Assam and Mr. B Gogoi, learned
counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 being the authorities under the Finance
Department Government of Assam.
Page No.# 3/5
2. The petitioners herein are temporary casual employees under the P & RD
Department having worked for more than 28 years and they were appointed
prior to 01.04.1993. The prayer of the writ petitioners are extracted as below:
"In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and be
pleased to issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why
a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other writ shall not be issued
with a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the services of
the petitioners as was processed in the File No.PDA 9/2001 and as was
carried out vide orders dated 29.06.2001 to regularise the services of 24
similarly situated employees and upon cause or causes being shown and
after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or
pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,
3. From the prayer, it is discernible that the petitioners seek for a direction for
regularization of their services as was processed in File No.PDA 9/2001 and as
was carried out by the order dated 29.06.2001 in respect of 24 other similarly
situated employees. Had the writ petition been initiated sometime when the
said order dated 29.06.2021 was passed, perhaps, the prayer may have been
entertained. But in course of time, several changes have taken place. Firstly the
respondents had stopped regularizing the muster roll workers irrespective of
their date of appointment. The issue regarding regularizing the muster roll
worker had finally been settled by the Division Bench dated 08.06.2017 in WA
No.45/2014 wherein it was provided that muster roll workers would be entitled
to minimum of the pay scale of a equivalent post where they are working. The
petitioners have been paid the minimum scale of pay. In the circumstance, we
Page No.# 4/5
are unable to accept the writ petition on the ground that the issue which had
finally been closed by the Division Bench is now sought to be re-opened.
However, we have noticed that there is also an Office Memorandum dated
27.06.2013 of the Finance Department, Government of Assam providing for a
one-time measure for regularizing such workers who satisfy the requirement of
paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Uma Devi and Ors. read with ML Keshari reported in (2010)9 SCC 247.
4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that perhaps the
petitioners may have a legal right pursuant to the said OM dated 22.06.2013.
5. We are not expressing any view on the said submission of the petitioner.
However, as this writ petition is structured for regularization of the services of
the petitioners per se the muster roll worker after the Division Bench judgment,
the petitioners seeks not to further pursue with this writ petition in the present
form and desire to withdraw the same with liberty to file afresh.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition stands closed as withdrawn.
7. Liberty prayed for is granted.
JUDGE
Page No.# 5/5
Comparing Assistant
