Anil Chandra Ray vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1064 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010057352022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2057/2022

         ANIL CHANDRA RAY
         S/O- LATE BHUMIDHAR RAY, R/O- VILL.- BAHALPUR NAGPARA, P.O.
         BAHALPUR, P.S. CHAPAR, PIN- 783371, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM, SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-781006, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

         2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006
          DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM

         3:THE DIRECTOR

          SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006
          DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
          ASSAM

         4:THE DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICER
          BONGAIGAON
          DIST. BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN- 783380
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A GOHAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                           ORDER

Date : 25.03.2022

1. Heard Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1998 as a Part-time Grade-IV Office Peon on contingency basis, to be paid Rs. 900/- per month from the contingency fund. The petitioner was given wages till July' 2011 at the subsequent rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. The petitioner was not given any wages from August 2011.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the service of the petitioner should be regularised and he should be considered for grant of benefits in terms of the Para 22 of the judgment in State of Assam & Others Vs. Upen Das & 836 Others in WA No. 45/2014 which was disposed of on 08.06.2017. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of Para 22 of the above judgment, the petitioner should be given the minimum scale of pay of a Peon. He also prays that a direction should be issued to the authorities to pay the unpaid wages of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 23.12.2021, which has not been considered by the respondents till date.

3. Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that the fact that the petitioner had been given wages at the rate of Rs. 900/- initially, which was raised to Rs. 2500/- per month till July' 2011 only, implies that the petitioner had not been engaged as a Office Peon beyond July' 2011. This fact is clear from the wage pay statement issued by the District Sports Officer, Bongaingaon (Annexure D-1). Thus, the petitioner's prayer cannot be considered.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Page No.# 3/3

5. A reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in the State of Assam & Others Vs. Upen Das & 836 Others (Supra) shows that the benefits of Para 22 would be applicable to those Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Workers and similarly placed employees who have been working continuously and were still in service. Further, in terms of the above case, there is no question of regularisation of the petitioner's service.

6. However, there is a disputed question of fact, as to whether the petitioner had been working with the State respondents beyond July' 2011, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had not been paid any wages beyond July' 2011, as can be seen from Annexure D-

1. Thus until it is decided that the petitioner had been working beyond July' 2011, the question of payment of wages beyond July' 2011 does not arise.

7. It is also noticed that petitioner had submitted a representation dated 23.12.2021 which has not been decided by the State respondents. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to examine the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-C) and take a decision on the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which shall be accompanied with a copy of writ petition. If the respondent no. 3 comes to a decision that the petitioner had been employed continuously beyond July' 2011, wages for the period of work beyond July' 2011 shall have to be paid. Further, the respondent no. 3 shall take a decision as to whether the petitioner is eligible to be given the benefits provided in Para-22 of the Judgment of Division Bench in State of Assam & Others Vs. Upen Das & 836 Others (Supra).

8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed off.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant