Rajani Choudhury and 2 Ors v. The State of Assam and 6 Ors

JUDGMENT & ORDER

Advocate for the petitioners : Shri R. Mazumdar,, Advocate

Advocate for respondents : Shri R.M. Das, SC, Water Resource Department. Shri R. Borpujari, SC, Finance Department

Date of hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of judgment : 08.05.2024 Heard Shri R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

¶2The petitioners who are three in numbers have joined together with a claim for the minimum pay scale in terms of a judgment and order dated Page No.# 4/7

08.06.2017 passed by this Court in WA 45/2014 (State of Assam and Ors. vs. Upen Das & Ors.).

¶3The petitioners have projected that they are working as Muster Roll Workers in the Water Resource Department from the year 1993. It is also contended that the stipulation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Upen Das (supra) is payment of minimum pay scale for existing employees who are in service for the last 10 years from the date of the judgment. The learned counsel has also referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Department wherein it has been admitted that the petitioners are working from 1993, 1995 and 1994 respectively. The only reason which is discernible from the affidavit is an enquiry on the aspect of their claim regarding induction in the service prior to 01.04.1993.

¶4Shri Mazumdar, the learned counsel contends that there being no dispute with the fact that the petitioners are in service for at least a period of 10 years prior to the judgment rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra) which was on

08.06.2017, the petitioners claim is justified and therefore, appropriate directions are to be issued in this regard.

¶5Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the dates of induction of the petitioner in service. He submits that though the petitioners have contended that they were appointed prior to 01.04.1993, the actual dates of their appointments are 01.06.1993, 01.03.1995 and 01.03.1994 respectively.

¶6By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 on 17.02.2023, more specifically, paragraph 8 thereof, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that an enquiry was held on the Page No.# 5/7 aspect of the initial date of their induction which was claimed by the petitioners to be prior to 01.04.1993. He also referred to the additional affidavit filed by the Department on the aspect of enquiry.

¶7Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel Finance Department, while endorsing the submissions and views of the Water Resource Department has also submitted that unless the date from which the petitioners are in service can be ascertained, there may not be automatic application of the mandate laid down in the case of Upen Das (supra). Shri Borpujari, learned counsel however has clarified that so far as the Finance Department is concerned, the role have been completed and it is up to the Administrative Department to take necessary steps.

¶8Shri Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder has submitted that apart from the admitted fact which would be revealed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Department that all the petitioners fulfilled the criterion of length of service laid down in Upen Das (supra), the salaries of the petitioners are also paid in their bank account which would prima facie establish their claim.

¶9After consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, this Court has noticed that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Department on 17.02.2023, there is a clear statement with regard to the dates of initial engagement of the petitioner. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph is extracted herein in below: "6. That, with regards to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that as per the records available in the office of the deponent, the initial engagement dates as stated in the writ Page No.# 6/7 petition is not correct and as such is denied by the answering deponent. The correct dates of initial engagement are as follows:

¶1Rajani Choudhury : 01-06-1993

¶2Pulak Barman : 01-03-1994

¶3Nakul Das : 01-03-1995"

¶10The only objection for denying the benefit of payment of minimum scale of pay is on the ground that an enquiry was conducted on the claim of the petitioner that they were working prior to 01.04.1993. In the opinion of this Court the aforesaid ground would not be a relevant factor at all for denying the benefit as given in the case of Upen Das (supra). In fact, this Court has noticed that such benefit was directed on a concession made by the State which would be apparent from the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in paragraph 22 of the judgment which is extracted herein below: "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 in sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017." Page No.# 7/7

¶11The issue with regard to the claim of the petitioners to have been appointed prior to 01.04.1993 on which an enquiry is stated to be done will have no relevance at all in the present claim made by the petitioners. There is no manner of doubt that the petitioners are in continuous service for a period of more than 10 years from the date of the judgment in Upen Das (supra) which is 08.06.2017.

¶12In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent authorities to give the benefit of minimum scale of pay to the petitioners for their services rendered as Muster Roll Worker at par with other candidates in terms of the judgment and order dated 08.06.2017 passed in the case of Upen Das (supra).

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/7 GAHC010228902022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7201/2022ooooooooo RAJANIoCHOUDHURYoANDo2oORSo S/O-oLATEoMADHABoCHOUDHURY,o R/O-oVILLAGE-oATHARA,o P.O.-oPUTHIMARI,oKAMRUP(R),o ASSAM,oPIN-o781380. 2:oNAKULoDAS oS/O-oLATEoBASANTAoRAMoDAS o R/O-oVILLAGE-oNO.o2oDOBOK o P.O.oDOBOK oRANGIA o DISTRICT-oKAMRUP(R) oASSAM o PIN-o781380. 3:oPULAKoBARMAN oS/O-oLATEoRAMESHoBARMAN o R/O-oKHATAoRUPIAoBATHAN o P.O.oCHAMATA o DISTRICT-oNALBARI oASSAM o PIN-o781306o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo6oORSo PageoNo.#o2/7 REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.o OFoASSAM,o WATERoRESOURCESoDEPARTMENT,o ASSAMoSACHIVALAYA,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-6. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFo ASSAM oFINANCEoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR o ASSAMoSACHIVALAYA oGUWAHATI-o6. 3:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVRENMENToTOoTHEo GOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oWATERoRESOURCESoDEPARTMENT o ASSAMoSACHIVALAYA o DISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006. 4:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oWATERoRESOURCESoDEPARTMENT oBASISTHA oGUWAHATI o DISTRICT-oKAMRUP oASSAM o PIN-o781029. 5:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoENGINEER oLOWERoASSAMoZONE oWATERoRESOURCESoDEPARTMENT o BASISTHA oGUWAHATI oASSAM o PIN-o781029. 6:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oGUWAHATIoWESToWATERoRESOURCEoDIVISIONS o Page No.# 3/7 BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI PIN- 781009. 7:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER RANGIA WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781301 B E F O R E Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI