Allowed

Gunada Deori v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/6467/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a Work Charged Khalasi seeking payment of arrears and regularization. The High Court held that continuous service without termination implies an obligation on the State to pay for service rendered, directing release of salary from September 2008.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release pay and allowances for service rendered as Work Charged Khalasi from September 2008 till date.

Gunada Deori Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010107662010

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6467/2010

¶5

1:GUNADA DEORI

¶6

W/O MADHAB DEORI R/O CHIRING CHAPORI SADASINA PATH, P.S. and P.O. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶9

TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6.

¶10

2:CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM GHY-3.

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIBRUGARH WATER RESOURCES DIVISION DIBRUGARH.

¶12

4:ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DIBRUGARH WEST SUB-DIVISION DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M K SHARMA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

- - B e f o r e

¶17

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶18

:: O R D E R :: (ORAL)

¶19

06.12.2018

¶20

Heard Mr. M. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, appearing for the respondents.

¶21

The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction for payment of salaries including arrears for the service rendered by the petitioner in the capacity of Khalasi from September, 2008 and also for regularizing her service.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Master Roll Worker in the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dibrugarh after 01.04.1993. Thereafter, she was upgraded to the post of Khalasi w.e.f. 08.02.2002 in the scale of pay Rs.2450-40-2770-EB-3490/- and since then she has been working as a Khalasi in the aforesaid Division without any interruption in service.

¶23

The petitioner claims that she has been paid her salary upto August, 2008 in the aforesaid pay-scale of Khalasi. However, thereafter she had not been paid her salary and as such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay her salary.

¶24

Though the State Government has not filed any affidavit in opposition, the learned Senior Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department has submitted on the strength of instructions received to that effect, as follows:

¶25

The Govt. O.M. No. FC(III) 24/92/Pt.190 dtd.18/10/2004 it is stated that “Muster Roll Workers/Work Charged Employees who were engaged after 01/04/1993 and completed 5 (Five) years of continuous service” could not be traced out at this office,. However, as informed later on that the aforesaid order was issued on 2004 but the petitioner continue receiving salary upto 2008.

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

In the meanwhile, in 2008, the Budget Branch of W.R. Department vide letter no. WR(BT)/107/2007/142 dtd. 25/08/2008 has directed to make payment of salaries against Muster Roll workers/Work Charged employees who were engaged prior to 01/02/1993. Therefore, the demand for further salary were not initiated. However, there were no directive from the higher authority for termination of the service of the petitioner as work charge employee and the petitioner continued attending to her duties. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Court for seeking justice for continuation of salary in 2010 vide WP(C) No. 6467/2010. Considering the case being under judicial purview, the matter was awaited for verdict from the Hon’ble Court.

¶28

Therefore, due to the non received of any official directive regarding the termination of the service of thepetitioner, the petitioner continue attending to her duties.

¶29

Accordingly, it has been submitted that because of the aforesaid instruction issued by the Finance Department as well as the Budget Branch of the Water Resources Department, the salaries could not be released as the Budgetary allocations were only for payment of salaries against Muster Roll workers/Work Charged worker engaged prior 01.02.1993. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was not covered and her salary has not been paid.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker and was upgraded as Work Charged Khalasi in the year 2002 and the petitioner is claiming that she is continuing to discharge her service as Khalasi since then. There is no order of reversion issued by the authority. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is upgraded to the post of Work Charged Khalasi, and had been engaged as Work Charged Khalasi since 2002, and her service still continues and she is continuing in rendering her service without any order of reversion of any kind, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given the salary for service rendered by her as Work Charged Khalasi.

¶31

The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department that there is no instruction to pay for Muster Roll workers/Work Charged employees who were employed after 01.02.1993 cannot be ground of denial of salary for the reason that if the person who has been duly appointed, is allowed to continue without any termination or without any order for discontinue the service, the State authorities are under obligation to make payment for the service rendered by such employees.

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to release the pay and allowances of the petitioner for the service rendered by her as Work Charged Khalasi from September 2008 till date.

¶34

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the above mentioned respondent authorities within the period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Gunada Deori v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunada Deori v. the State of Assam and 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

Sankaradeva Nethralaya Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Md. Nal Miah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smti Minu Devi Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Ajit Sarki and 29 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sailendra Bujarbaruah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Kalyan Kalita Vs the State of Assam and Ors.