Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 18 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010047442023
2025:GAU-AS:8178
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1314/2023
RAMANUJ CHAKRABORTY AND 11 ORS.
S/O- RANABIR CHAKRABORTY,
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE
PROJECT DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY , CACHAR,
P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR,
DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788001
2: BISWARUP DASGUPTA
S/O- LATE BENIMADHAB DASGUPTA
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR SILCHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
3: RATNADEEP DAS PODDAR
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR SILCHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
4: PARSHWOTI CHAKRABORTY
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
5: ALIK HAJOM S/O- RANABIR CHAKRABORTY
WORKING AS DRIVER OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CACHAR
P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
6: RAKHI RANI DEB
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
Page No.# 2/9
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR SILCHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
7: POULOMI CHAKRABORTY
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR SILCHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
8: DEBJANI PAUL
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
9: PRASENJIT CHAKRABORTY
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
10: PROSENJIT MAZUMDER
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM PIN-788001
11: DEBASHISH PAUL
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM PIN-788001
12: HASSAN ARSHAD BARBHUIYA
WORKING AS COMPUTER ASSISTANT CUM CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CACHAR P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-06
Page No.# 3/9
3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSAM PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN-78800
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S NATH, MR. S DUTTA,DR G J SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.,
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 18.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.
Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department,
appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
2. The petitioners, herein, have instituted the present proceeding, praying for
the following reliefs:
"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship's may be pleased
to consider this petition, admit the same, call for the records and Issue Rule nisi upon
the respondents as to why: -
(A) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction should not be issued directing and/or commanding the respondents to
immediately release wages of the petitioners with effect from 14.01.2019 and further
be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the wages with arrears at
the minimum of the pay-scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale as
extended to regular employees, holding the same post;
(B) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction should not be issued to the respondents to consider regularisation of
services of the petitioners.
-And-
Page No.# 4/9
Cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the
Rule absolute and/or pass such other or further order (s) as Your Lordships may deem
fit and proper.
-And-
Pending disposal of Rule, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to
allow the petitioners to continue to work on casual basis and to pay them current
wages."
3. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioners, herein, were engaged as
Casual Office Staff on various dates in the Office of the District Rural
Development Agency, Cachar. The petitioners on their such engagement, were
being extended with a fixed pay. The materials brought on record would go to
reveal that the petitioners, herein, were engaged for the works of Computer
Assistant-cum-Clerk as well as of Driver. The petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, herein,
were so engaged in the year 2005, whereas, the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 & 12, herein, were so engaged in the year 2012 and 2015.
4. All the above-noted petitioners, herein, have contended that although they
are discharging similar duties as has been discharged by the regular incumbents
in the post of Computer Assistant-cum-Clerk as well as Driver; they have been
denied the minimum of the pay received by a regular incumbent in a similar post.
The petitioners have further contended that they are entitled to the benefits
flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case
of State of Assam & ors. v. Upen Das & ors. [Writ Appeal No. 45/2014, judgment
& order, dated 08.06.2017].
5. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, by
reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that although the
petitioners, herein, were engaged on casual basis; they are entitled to the
benefits flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in
the case of Upen Das(supra). The learned counsel has further submitted that in
view of the fact that the works done by the petitioners, herein, are perennial in
Page No.# 5/9
nature; they are also entitled to have their cases considered for regularisation of
their services.
6. Mr. Nath, learned counsel, has further submitted that the wages of the
petitioners with effect from 14-01-2019, have not been released and accordingly,
a direction is also required to be issued to the respondent authorities for release
of the wages of the petitioners, herein, with effect from 14-01-2019, in terms of
the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of
Upen Das(supra).
7. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural
Development Department, has submitted that the very engagement of the
petitioners, herein, were on casual basis and accordingly, they would not be
entitled to the benefits of the minimum scale of pay of a regular post. The learned
standing counsel has further submitted that the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 & 12, herein, having been so engaged only in the year 2012 and 2015; they
would not be entitled to the benefits flowing from the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra).
8. Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development
Department, has submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra); further Muster Roll Workers/
work charged workers/casual workers would not be entitled to have their such
services considered for regularisation. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta, learned standing
counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, has submitted that the
petitioners, herein, have failed to make-out a prima facie case requiring the
interference by this Court in the matter.
Page No.# 6/9
9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also
perused the materials available on record.
10. At the outset, it is required to notice the directions passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in WA No.45/2015. The operative portion of the said decision,
being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
"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 as 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 in 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."
11. A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the
case of Upen Das(supra); would go to reveal that the benefits as extended
therein, is so applicable only to the Muster Roll Workers/work charged workers
and similarly placed employees working since more than 10 years (not in
sanctioned post) till the date of the said decision. The workers who have
completed more than 10 years of service (not in sanctioned post), were directed
to be paid the minimum of the pay scale with effect from 01-08-2017. The said
decision further provided that the Muster Roll Workers/work charged workers and
casual workers, were not entitled to have such services regularised with
consequential benefits, such as pension, etc.
Page No.# 7/9
12. Applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the
case of Upen Das(supra), to the facts of the present case; it is found that the said
decision would be applicable only in respect of the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5,
herein, in-as-much as, the said petitioners were so engaged in the year 2005.
Accordingly, the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, are held to be entitled to the benefits
flowing from paragraph No. 22 of the said decision of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra).
13. With regard to the remaining petitioners i.e. the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11 & 12, herein, they having been engaged only in the year 2012 and
2015; they would not be entitled to the benefits flowing from paragraph No. 22 of
the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra).
Accordingly, the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, would be entitled only
to the minimum of the wages as fixed by the Government of Assam, from time to
time, for workers engaged on casual/temporary basis.
14. Having reached the above conclusions; it is hereby provided that the
petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, shall submit individual representations
before the respondent No. 3, through the respondent No. 4, within a period of
1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and
therein, disclose their service particulars as well as the period for which they were
not released with their wages. The said petitioners shall also indicate in their
respective representations, as to whether, they are continuing to render their
services and also the establishment, wherein, they are so rendering their
services.
15. The respondent No. 3, on receipt of the representations from the
petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, shall consider the same and on
verification of the particulars set-out, therein, and also by verifying as to whether
Page No.# 8/9
the said petitioners were continuing in their respective services, shall pass a
speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11 & 12, individually, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt
of representation(s) from the said petitioners.
16. In the event, the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, herein, on
verification, is found to be in continuous service, in the speaking order to be
passed; the arrears of wages receivable by them for the services so rendered,
shall also be spelt-out. The arrears of wages so determined in respect of each of
the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, herein, be released to them within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of passing of the speaking order.
17. The petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, herein, also would submit individual
representations before the respondent No. 3, and also disclose their service
particulars along with the details of the period for which they were not released
their respective wages. The said petitioners shall also indicate in their respective
representations, as to whether, they are continuing to render their services and
also the establishment, wherein, they are so rendering their services.
18. The respondent No. 3, on receipt of the representations from the
petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, shall consider the same and on verification of the
particulars set-out, therein, and also by verifying as to whether the said
petitioners were continuing in their respective services, shall pass a speaking
order and communicate the same to the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, individually,
within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of representation(s)
from the said petitioners.
19. In the event, the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, herein, are found to be in
Page No.# 9/9
continuous service; the wages receivable by the said petitioners, be so released
to them in terms of the directions contained in paragraph No. 22 of the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra)
w.e.f. 01.08.2017, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of passing of
the speaking order in the matter.
20. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly
stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
