Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 8 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010203712025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5262/2025
MOSIHUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS
S/O- LATE MOJAHAR ALI, R/O- VILL.- TUKRAIPARA UNDER P.O.
JHOWDANGA, P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR.
2: ANAUL ISLAM
S/O- LATE MOJAMMEL HOQUE
R/O- VILL. AND P.O. KAKRIPARA
P.S. MANKACHAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA
MANKACHAR
ASSAM
3: ASHRAFUL ALOM
S/O- LATE MAKBUL HUSSAIN
R/O- VILL.- BANGTIMAK UNDER P.O. DHANUA
P.S. MANKACHAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA
MANKACHAR.
4: SURAT ZAMAN SK
S/O- LATE KOBAD HUSSAIN
R/O- VILL.- PURAN SUKHCHAR
UNDER P.O. PHULERCHAR
P.S. SUKHCHAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA
MANKACHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781019.
4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
P.O. AND P.S. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. ARIF AHMED,U U KHAN,MS Y AFREEN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
08.09.2025
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. P.K.
Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education
Department.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have
prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to grant arrear salary and
increment to the petitioners, as similarly situated persons have already been provided
with the same relief or to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated
05.12.2024 and 10.12.2024, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on
09.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022.
Page No.# 3/5
3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein
were appointed as Assistant Teachers in various M.E. Schools under Dhubri district in the
year 1993, against sanctioned posts pursuant to proper selection and approval of the
Government and since then they have been continuously discharging their duties.
Thereafter, in view of controversies in respect of appointment of the teachers, the State
respondents have constituted one committee, namely, Manoharan Committee and the
said committee had submitted its report, wherein the petitioners were categorized as
irregular appointees. However, their services were regularized vide orders dated
12.02.2001, with effect from their initial dates of joining, and despite rendering
uninterrupted service, the petitioners were denied arrear salary and increments for the
period from June 1995 to February 2003, even though their services were utilized by the
respondent authorities.
4. Mr. Ahmed further submits that thereafter, some similarly situated teachers
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5286/2004 and also in some connected matters,
wherein this Court held that the said petitioners were entitled to arrear salary and the
said decision was upheld in WA No.46/2013 and the Review Petition No.81/2016 filed by
the respondents was rejected and despite such authoritative pronouncements of this
Court, the petitioners were arbitrarily denied similar benefits merely because they had not
been a party in those proceedings.
5. Mr. Ahmed further submits that the grounds for denial of the benefit to the present
petitioners is arbitrary, as it is well settled proposition of law in view of the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central
Excise, New Delhi & Ors., reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714 and in K.I. Shephard &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431 and also in the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v.
Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, wherein it has
been held that once a declaration of law is made, identically placed employees cannot be
compelled to litigate separately and must be extended the same benefit. Mr. Ahmed
submits that thereafter, the petitioners submitted two representations on 05.12.2024 and
Page No.# 4/5
10.12.2024, before the competent authorities, but the same also failed to evoke any
response from the respondent authorities and thereby, their right, guaranteed under
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and therefore, it is
contended to allow this petition.
6. Mr. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department
submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by directing the
respondent authorities to dispose of the representations dated 05.12.2024 and
10.12.2024, after verification of the relevant documents.
7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have
carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone
through the decisions referred by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. It is well settled proposition of law that once a declaration of law is made,
identically placed employees cannot be compelled to litigate separately and they shall be
extended the same benefit. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions of
Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I. Shephard (supra), and Lt. Col. Suprita
Chandel (supra).
9. It also appears from the order of this Court in WP(C) No.5286/2004, that the
petitioners of the said petition were granted their arrear salaries from their respective
dates of appointment and this Court has also directed to take special measures like
creation of supernumerary post and special allocation in order to make payment of the
arrear salary and the said order was unsuccessfully challenged in the WA No.46/2013, as
well as in the Review Petition No.81/2016. It is not in dispute that the present petitioners
are also similarly situated with the petitioners of WP(C) No.5286/2004 and in view of the
settled proposition of law laid down in the cases of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I.
Shephard (supra), and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra), the present petitioners
are also entitled to the similar benefit. It also appears that on 05.12.2024 and
10.12.2024, the petitioners have filed two representations addressing the Director,
Department of Elementary Education and also the Commissioner & Secretary, Department
Page No.# 5/5
of School Education, Govt. of Assam, but the said representations failed to evoke any
response.
10. Under such circumstances and also taking note of the submission of learned
counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing
the petitioners to file a fresh representation, along with the copy of this writ petition and
the annexures to the respondent No.3 and on such representation being filed, the
respondent No.3 shall dispose of the same by a speaking order, extending the benefit of
the judgment and order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in WP(C)
No.5286/2004, subject however to verification of the service particulars of the present
petitioners.
11. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy
of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one
week from today.
Sd/- Robin Phukan
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
