THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEWAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

21.10.2022 ORDER

Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners were engaged as Casual Workers w.e.f. 05.08.2004, at a fixed wage of Rs.1800/- per month, by the then Project Director, DRDA, Barpeta, vide order dated 05.08.2004. After abolishment of the DRDA in the year 2019, the petitioners started working under the establishment of the respondent no.5 and their monthly wages have been increased from time to time.

The petitioners’ counsel submits that as the petitioners have been engaged prior to 01.09.2005 and are working till date, they are entitled to the benefit of the minimum scale of pay, as provided in paragraph 22 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of State of Assam vs. Upen Das & 835 Others, WA No.45/2014. Page No.# 3/4

Paragraph 22 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.45/2014 is reproduced below, as follows :

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.

The petitioners’ counsel submits that the present writ petition can be disposed of, if liberty is given to the petitioners, to file individual representations to the respondent no.3, who should take a decision with regard to whether the petitioners are entitled to the payment of the minimum scale of pay, as provided in paragraph 22 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.45/2014.

Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submit that they have got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel. Page No.# 4/4

In view of the consent of the parties, the petitioners are given the liberty to file individual representations to the respondent no.3, within a period of 1 (one) month from today. The respondent no.3 shall take a decision as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the payment of the minimum scale of pay, as provided in paragraph 22 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.45/2014, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the petitioners’ individual representations accompanied by a copy of this order. The decision taken by the respondent no.3 shall thereafter be communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant