Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Gobin Bora on 25 July, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010035282023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./30/2023
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6,
DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2: THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3: THE DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION
ASSAM
BHUMI SANGRAKHAN BHAWAN
R.G. BARUAH ROAD
GUWAHATI- 5
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
4: THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
GOLAGHAT SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION
GOLAGHAT
DIST.- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
GOBIN BORA
S/O SRI PURNA BORA VILLAGE HOLLOW GAON PO KHONGIA, PS
DERGAON, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785614, WORKING AS TYPIST CUM
COMPUTER ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, GOLAGHAT.
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R S DEURI
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 25-07-2023
Heard Mrs. RS Deuri, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also
heard Ms. NS Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The counsel for the review petitioners submits that the order dated
16.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 5290/2020 needs to be interfered with, in view
of the fact that the writ petitioner has been referred to as a Muster Roll worker
in the impugned order, which was made on the basis of the State Government/
review petitioners having referred to the writ petitioner as a Muster Roll worker
in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ proceedings. She submits that a
mistake has been made on the part of the review petitioners, as the writ
petitioner is actually a daily wage worker and not a Muster Roll worker. She
accordingly prays that a correction be made in the impugned Order, by referring
to the writ petitioner as a daily wage worker and not a Muster Roll worker. She
further submits that the correction sought for by the review petitioners would
not affect the direction passed in the impugned order, for providing the
minimum scale of pay to the writ petitioner, even if the writ petitioner is referred
to as a daily wage worker.
3. Ms. NS Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent submits that she
has no objection to the prayer made by the review petitioners' counsel, so long
Page No.# 3/3
as the writ petitioner is given the minimum scale of pay.
4. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties,
this Court is of the view that the review petition should be allowed, inasmuch as
the petitioner is a daily wage worker and not a Muster Roll worker, as has been
mistakenly referred to by the review petitioners in the writ petition. The above
being said, para 22 of the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2017, passed in WA
No. 45/2014, had directed the State Government to pay the minimum of the pay
scale to Muster Roll workers, work charged workers and similarly placed
employees, working since the last more than 10 (ten) years (not in sanctioned
post) w.e.f. 01.08.2017. As similarly placed employees mentioned in para 22 of
the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2017, passed in WA No. 45/2014 would
also include the writ petitioner, as has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the review petitioners, this Court directs the State respondents to pay to the
writ petitioner the minimum scale of pay, as provided in the Office Order No.
200 dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Director, Soil Conservation, Assam and the
subsequent revision of the said pay scale in terms of the Office Order No. 200
dated 07.11.2019.
5 The pay/arrear pay should be released to the writ petitioner within a
period of 2 (two) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
6. The review petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
