Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5232 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 12 June, 2025

                                                               Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010230992015




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:7712
                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : WP(C)/81/2015

         UPEN DAS and 17 ORS.
         S/O LT. MADAN DAS

         2: NARAYAN PATHAK
          S/O LT. MAHENDRA MOHAN PATHAK

         3: JOYKANTA KALITA
          S/O LT. JAGAT KALITA

         4: AVA DEY
         W/O LT. AJAY DEY

         5: JALILUR RAHMAN
          S/O TAJNUDDIN AHMED

         6: MOHAN NARZARY
          S/O SRI HOLONG NARZARY

         7: FARID ALI
          S/O LT. SARIF ALI

         8: TARINI KANTA DEKA
          S/O LT. PITMAL CHANDRA DEKA

         9: NARAKANTA DAS
          S/O LT. KHARGESWAR DAS

         10: MADHAB CHANDRA DEKA
          S/O LT. GOLOK CHANDRA DEKA

         11: NIRAKAR TALUKDAR
          S/O LT. RAIJYA RAM TALUKDAR

         12: MATIRAM KALITA
          S/O LT. RAMPATI KALITA
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6

          13: ANIL PHUKAN S/O LT. LAKHESWAR PHUKAN

          14: DILIP DAS S/O LT. RAMESH CHANDRA DAS

          15: SARAT BARUA S/O SRI JIBESWAR BARUA

          16: SADANANDA BORAH S/O LT. KAMAL CHANDRA BORAH

          17: LABANNYA RABHA W/O LT. LAKHI RABHA

          18: MD. SAIF ALI S/O MD. SOHRAB ALI
          ALL ARE MUSTER ROLL WORKERS WORKING UNDER THE
          DIRECTORATE OF GEOLOGY and MINING
          ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-1

          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
          REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER
          ELECTRIC MINES and MINERALS DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

          2:THE DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY and MINING
          ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19

          3:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A PATHAK, MS.A TALUKDAR,MR.N PATHAK,MR.P S
LAHKAR,MR.D K SARMAH

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D MAZUMDARR-2, GA, ASSAM,MS.A VERMA,SC,

FINANCE,MR.P BORAH(R-2),MR.R SARMA(R-2)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

12.06.2025

Heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, and Mr. Rajib Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

Page No.# 3/6

2. The petitioners, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for the following reliefs:

"In the premises aforesaid, It is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule nisi calling upon the Respondents to show-cause as to why an appropriate direction shall not be issued in the form of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize/ adjust the services of the petitioners in the sanctioned vacancies lying vacant under the Directorate of Geology & Mining, Assam pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court subject to the result of the W.A. No. 45/2014. Further a writ of certiorari may be issued to setting aside and quashing the impugned Advertisement dated 20.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-Q) issued by the Respondent No. 2 and upon hearing the parties and perusal of the records of the case be pleased to pass such other or further order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. The petitioners, herein, by raising a similar grievance earlier, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)3086/2010.

The said writ petition along with other analogous matters, was considered and disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 20.12.2013, directing the State Respondents to initiate steps for regularization of the services of the petitioners involved in the said proceeding and for the said purpose, directions were set-out in paragraph No. 66 of the said order, dated 20.12.2013.

4. The State being aggrieved, had assailed the said order, dated 20.12.2013, by way of instituting a writ appeal being WA No. 45/2014[State of Assam & ors. v. Upen Das & ors.]. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 08.06.2017, was pleased to dispose of the said appeal by accepting the undertaking given by the State Respondents not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The Division Bench of this Court further noticed the decision of the State Government to enlist such employees in Health Page No.# 4/6

and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme.

5. Having noticed the said decision of the State; the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 08.06.2017, proceeded to pass the following directions:

"22. It is, however, heartening to learn that the State Government has agreed not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The State Government has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken a s welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question. We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not i n sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017.

23. For these reasons, we are of the view that in the fact situation of the case, Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and Casual workers are not entitled for regularization of their services with consequential benefits, such as, pension etc. We, accordingly, subject to our direction in paragraph 22 of the judgment, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.1 2.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge."

6. During the pendency of the said writ appeal being WA No. 45/2014, the present writ petition was instituted by the petitioners, praying for regularization of their services. However, the prayer made in the writ petition as extracted hereinabove, would go to reveal that such prayer for regularization was so made subject to the result of the proceedings in WA No. 45/2014.

7. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), in paragraph No. 22, that the said directions were so limited to the persons not working in sanctioned posts; has contended that the petitioners, herein, were working in sanctioned posts in the Directorate of Geology & Mining, Page No.# 5/6

Government of Assam, and accordingly, the directions laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), would not be applicable to the petitioners, herein.

8. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel, has further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts, they would be entitled to have their services regularized in terms of the policy decision adopted in this connection by the State Government.

9. On a query made by this Court to Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, to demonstrate as to how the contention that the petitioners were working against the sanctioned posts, have been so made; the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any basis for such contentions raised in the matter.

10. Be that as it may, the same very petitioners being also involved in the proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 45/2014 and the same having held that the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charged Workers and Casual Workers are not entitled to regularization of their services with consequential benefits such as pension; the said direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court still holding the field, it is not open for this Court to take a different view in the matter.

11. Further, as noticed hereinabove, the petitioners, herein, have also failed to demonstrate that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), would not be attracted to them and they would be entitled to have their cases considered for regularization.

12. It is to be noted that the benefits extended by the Division Bench of this Page No.# 6/6

Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), is being received by the petitioners, herein.

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), would stand squarely attracted to the case of the petitioners, herein, and they would not be entitled to any other benefit other than that extended by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra).

14. In the above view of the matter; the instant writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant