Gauhati High Court
Mithlesh Kumar Devedi vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 6 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010181972024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/320/2024
MITHLESH KUMAR DEVEDI
S/O LATE SHRIRAM DEVEDI,
RESIDENT OF EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM.
PRESENTLY SERVING AS LEADING HAND (ADM. )A T507 SS AND TC
(GREF), CHANDIGARH, C/O 56 A. PIN 930507
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE SECRETARY
BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B WING
4TH FLOOR
SENA BHAVAN
NEW DELHI- 110001
3:THE SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL
PG AND PENSIONS
NEW DELHI- 110001
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS
SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN
RING ROAD
DELHI CANT.
NEW DELHI- 110001
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP
C/O 99 AP
Page No.# 2/4
For petitioner/applicant(s) : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Choudhury, CGC
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MRs. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
06.08.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the appellant, and
Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated
02.08.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2745/2019,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was rejected.
The appellant seeks parity of pay with Overseers.
To state the case of the appellant in short, he is an employee of the
Border Road Organization (BRO) specifically serving in the General Reserve
Engineering Force. He was initially appointed as a Pioneer and was promoted to
the position of Painter and, ultimately, to the position of Leading Hand (Non-
Technical) which, in present day parlance, is known as Leading Hand (Admn.).
The claim of the appellant is that the position of a Leading Hand (Admn.)
is equivalent to that of an Overseer, sharing the same rank and responsibility.
Under such circumstances, his claim is that he and the other persons in his
category must be accorded the same pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, which is
given to Overseers.
The learned Single Judge examined the claim of the appellant and found
that for the position of Leading Hand (Admn.), one does not require any
Page No.# 3/4
diploma in Engineering, whereas diploma in engineering is an essential
qualification for the position of Overseer.
So far as the duties are concerned, the Overseers are engaged in
performing the duties of mustering of Casual Workers and supervising the Civil
Engineering works related to road/bridges/building; whereas the duties attached
to the post of Leading Hand (Admn.) relate to security of unit area, discipline of
troops, liaison duties and other duties related with general administration and
man-management. The nature and duties, as attached to the post of Leading
Hand (Admn.) and to that of the post of Overseers are, thus, very different with
different responsibilities, inviting no comparison.
It appears from the records that as per the 6 th Pay Commission
recommendations, the Pay Scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- per month is to be given
to the posts wherein one of the eligibility criteria prescribed for recruitment is
the possession of diploma in a particular trade. For recruitment to the post of
Leading Hand (Admn.), the basic qualification is not diploma and therefore, on a
general reading of the recommendations, such pay scale would not be
applicable to the Leading Hand (Admn).
Initially, non-diploma holders, who are promoted to the rank of Overseers,
were not accorded the same Pay as was available to the Overseers with
diploma, but later with the intervention of the Courts, the Overseers, whether
with or without diploma, came to be paid the same salary under the Scale of Rs.
5,000-8,000/-.
The appellant admittedly does not possess diploma in engineering. His
claim is based on the similar nature of work attached to his post, which is not
correct.
Page No.# 4/4
As already noted above, the educational qualification prescribed in the
Recruitment Rules of 1982 for direct recruitment to the post of Leading Hand
(Admn.) is only matriculation, or three years experience in construction
works/supervision of labour/man.
A comparison of the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the
cadre of Leading Hand (Non-Technical) and Overseers would clearly reveal that
it is different and the responsibilities too are different.
On this ground, the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected.
We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single
Judge that a Leading Hand (Admn.), not being a part of the technical cadre of
BRO, would not be entitled to be extended the same scale of pay as has been
extended to the Overseers.
The appeal is therefore dismissed, ratifying the judgment delivered by the
learned Single Judge.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
