Mangra Orang vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 3 February, 2026

                                                                   Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010023812017




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3063/2017

         MANGRA ORANG
         S/O- SEKAM ORANG, R/O- VILL- MAJULIGARH TEA ESTATE, P.O
         BISWANATH CHARIALI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM



         VERSUS


         THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
         THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND
         RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER
          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM
          JURIPAR
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-781037

         3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          SONITPUR ZILLA PARISHAD
         TEZPUR
          DIST- SONITPUR
         ASSAM

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
          DIST RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
          SONITPUR
         TEZPUR
          DIST- SONITPUR
         ASSAM

         5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6

             DIST RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
             SONITPUR
             TEZPUR
             DIST- SONITPUR
             ASSAM

            6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             SAKOMATHA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
            VILL- FALFALI
             P.O- BISWANATH CHARIALI
             DIST- SONITPUR
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. E AHMED, MR.D BANIA,MR.P BISWAS,MR.S C BISWAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                         ORDER

03.02.2026

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of wages pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No./5806/2013 has been examined and rejected.

3. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as Peon (Grade - IV) on a daily wage basis in the Sakomatha Development Block under the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Sonitpur which was a new Block created on Page No.# 3/6

08.11.1999. Accordingly, he joined as Peon on 04.01.2000. It is contended that despite the petitioner continuously working since his engagement, although, initially he was paid daily wages @ Rs.48/- per day, his daily wage has not been paid since August, 2008. It is the simple grievance of the petitioner that the direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to pay the arrear wages for the period from August 2008 till he was disengaged as a Grade IV Employee, i.e., 14.10.2015.

4. It is noticed that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier, being WP(C)/5806/2013 for a relief of payment of his daily wages both current as well as arrear. This Court vide an order dated 23.02.2015 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of wages, current as well as arrear and thereafter, pass necessary orders so that the petitioner receive his daily wages both current as well as arrear. It has also been directed that while examining the matter, respondent authorities shall also consider the aspect relating to payment of minimum wages as per the statutory requirement.

5. Pursuant thereto, vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2015, the claim of the petitioner appears to have been considered, however, the same has been rejected by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam

6. Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if his arrear wages is paid from August, 2008 to 2015. He submits that the petitioner has already been disengaged from the service as a Peon, therefore, no grievance could be raised so far as the continuation of his service is concerned.

Page No.# 4/6

7. Mr. A.K. Ghosh, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 submits that budget proposal has already been submitted vide order dated 24.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.4,82,222/- to the Project Director (PD), DRDA, Sonitpur. However, no response has been received as yet from the Competent Authority. Therefore, the Block Office has not been able to pay the arrear wages due to paucity of fund. He further submits that the petitioner was engaged temporarily by the then Block Development Officer of Sakomatha Development Block and his service was utilised by the concerned Block Development Officer without prior approval of the Government. As no selection process was followed, therefore, the engagement in fact was illegal.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

9. As noted herein above, vide an order dated 23.02.2025, this Court has directed the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of wages, current as well arrear and to pass necessary orders so that the petitioner receive his daily wages for current as well arrear. It was further provided that while examining the matter, the respondent authorities shall consider the aspect relating to payment of minimum wages as per the statutory requirement.

10. This Court has also observed that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged on a daily basis. As per the communication received from the Director, Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam, no permanent post has been created till date. Due to non availability of fund, the wages of the petitioner could not be paid, therefore, the Block Office was not in a position to pay regular wages due to paucity of fund.

Page No.# 5/6

11. This Court has furthermore, observed that when the service of the petitioner has been utilised, there is no reason or justification to deny him the fruits of his labour. While sanctioning of the post is within the domain of administration for functioning of the new Development Block which has been created, service of employees would certainly be required and in that context, service of the petitioner has been utilised. In the absence of any sanction post, his service has been utilised in the Grade-IV post on daily wage basis, therefore, it is the duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is paid his wages for the service rendered otherwise it will be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

12. Undisputedly, the petitioner was engaged temporarily as Office Peon on daily wage basis from 04.01.2000 by the Block Development Officer of Sakamatha Development Block. However, the engagement appears to be irregular in view of the fact that it was not by any selection process.

13. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was paid his wages from the date of his joining @ Rs.48/- per day till the month of August, 2008 and no wages was paid thereafter till the petitioner was disengaged as Grade IV employee in the said Block Office.

14. Although the petitioner engagement appears to be not in accordance with proper selection process, that too, by an Officer not competent to engage, the utilisation of his service as a Grade IV employee / peon without payment of daily wages would obviously amount to violation of his fundamental rights as the respondent authorities have extracted work from him.

15. The respondent appears to have not disputed the appointment, although irregular, as well as the utilisation of the service of the petitioner as Grade IV Page No.# 6/6

employee. Only the ground of non payment of wages for the service rendered by the petitioner appears to be due to paucity of fund which cannot be a ground to deny the daily wages of the petitioner for service rendered by him. Ordinarily, once the appointment is found to be illegal, no right would accrue therefrom for any benefits out of such illegal appointment.

16. However, since the engagement of the petitioner as Grade IV, thereafter the utilisation of the service of the petitioner is not disputed, the petitioner in my considered view would be entitled to daily wages for the service rendered as Grade IV employee. Thus, it would be unfair on the part of the respondent authorities to deny the fruit of labour for the services the petitioner has rendered, that too, on daily wage basis.

17. In view of the above, in my considered view, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of the daily wages for a period from August, 2008 till his disengagement @ Rs. 48/- per day in view of the fact that the service of the petitioner has been utilised for the said period.

18. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall release the arrears of daily wages @ Rs.48/- per day for the period from August 2008 to 14.10.2015 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

19. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant