Disposed

Bulbul Ali and 36 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2018WP(C)/2836/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner work-charged labourers claiming denial of increment benefits due to lack of service book entries. Court directed the Commissioner/Secretary to decide on service book entries within two months to enable increment benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to decide on service book entries for the petitioners for the period 1.3.1997 within two months to enable increment benefits.

Bulbul Ali and 36 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010022762017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2836/2017

¶5

1:BULBUL ALI and 36 ORS.

¶6

S/O. LT. AMIR ALI, VILL. ATHAKURIA, P.O. PATHARIGHAT, P.S. SIPAJHAR, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORK DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶10

2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. AUDIT BRANCH DISPUR GHY.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROAD CHANDMARI GHY.-03.

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. MANGALDAI RURAL ROADS DIVISION DARRANG ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. UDALGURI RURAL ROADS DIVISION DARRANG ASSAM.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. STATE RURAL ROADS DIVISION DARRANG ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K J SAIKIA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

01.02.2018

¶22

Heard Mr. KJ Saikia, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Nath, counsel for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioners herein are presently working as Work-Charged Labourers under the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. Their services came to be regularised by order of the respondent No.4 i.e. Executive Engineer, PWD, Mangaldai Rural Road Division dated 3.3.2014.

¶24

The petitioners’ grievance is that they have been denied increment benefits due to entries not being made in their Service Book, while the same has been done in the case of 32 similarly situated persons.

¶25

Mr. D Nath, counsel for the respondents submits that the stand of the respondents is reflected in paragraph 8 to 11 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. He submits that the Government has not taken a decision till date with regard to the petitioners’ grievance regarding entries to be made in their Service Book and unless the Govt. approved the same, the increment benefit cannot be paid to the petitioners.

¶26

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

¶27

Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4 are reproduced below;

¶28

“8. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

petition the deponent begs to state that in pursuance of Govt. letter No.ADT.37/2008/149 dtd. 19.09.2008 issued in compliance with the Hon’ble High Court dtd. 14/09/2004 in WP(C) No.569/04 order dtd. 09.12.2004 and in Cr.R. No.1799298 Order dtd. 16.09.2002 the services of 32 nos. casual Muster Roll workers were brought under Regular cadre under work charge Establishment with retrospective effect from 1.03.1997 to 21.07.2005 and 01.09.1997 to 21/07/2005. Accordingly they were getting all arrear remunerations. In this connection it may be mentioned here that the services of 32 Nos. Muster Roll workers were regularised with effect from 22/07/2005 by creating Gr-IV post personal to each incumbents vide Finance Deptt. letter No.FFC(II)/2005/66 dtd. 28.02.2005 and Govt. letter No.ADT.71/2005/133 dtd. 30.09.2005.

¶31

That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the correspondences has been made to the Govt. for entry in service book with retrospective effect to the Service of the petitioners vide office letter No.3377 dtd. 03.03.2014 as such it is not discrimination and injustice and this is due to non availability of service Roll for which necessary service Book entry are to be prepared.

¶32

That as regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that all arrear remuneration including increment benefit with effect from 01.03.1997 to 21.07.2005 has already been paid to the petitioners. But necessary entry in the service Book is yet to be made due to non availability of service Roll under Work Charge period (i.e. 1.3.1997 to 21.07.2005) Necessary correspondences has been made to the Govt. vide letter No.3377 dtd. 03.03.2014.

¶33

That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition the deponent relies on the reply stated in para 10 above and does not admit the statement that “the denial of the increment benefit and or making necessary service book entry to the petitioner on the face of facts and circumstances are arbitrary, illegal, improper, discriminatory and inequitable”. This is further to state

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

that to provide the increment benefit, necessary entries in the service Book is to be made on the basis of service Roll and approval of the Govt. is required for its retrospective effect to the petitioners.”

¶36

The issue to be decided lies in a very narrow compass, inasmuch as, the ball now rests with the respondent No.1, i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Works Department (Road).

¶37

In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to take a decision for making the necessary entries in the Service Book of the petitioners for the period from 1.3.1997, to enable the petitioners to receive increment benefits on the basis of the entries to be made in their Service Book. The decision of the respondent No.1 shall be made within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision made by the respondent No.1 and the consequences thereof shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Bulbul Ali and 36 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bulbul Ali and 36 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pallabi Bora Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Uma Kanta Kalita Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Chakradhar Ray and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Eunush Ali and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Babu Moni Deka and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smti Mina Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.