Dismissed

Suren Saikia v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 May 2022WP(C)/2753/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, formerly a Muster Roll worker, was regularized later by Office Order. He challenged his lack of regularization from 1992 and claimed back wages. Court dismissed petition relying on prior precedent holding Muster Roll workers have no right to regularization and finding no merit in retrospective wage claims without prior challenge to the Salary Order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suren Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010076032022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2753/2022

¶5

SUREN SAIKIA

¶6

S/O- LT. MONESWAR SAIKIA, R/O- MELENG BORGURI GAON, JORHAT- 785101.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY., IRRIGATION DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.- 781006.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER FINANCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY.- 781006.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶12

IRRIGATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY.- 781003.

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JORHAT DIVISION (IRRIGATION) JORHAT- 785001

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K BHATTACHARJEE

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶16

– – B E F O R E

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 11-05-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in lieu of the petitioner’s wife’s land being given to the State Government in the year 1992, which is located in Jorhat Town, the

¶21

Page No.# 2/3

¶22

petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the establishment of the respondent No.4 in the year 1992. The petitioner’s engagement as a Muster Roll worker was discontinued when he attained the age of 60 years on 30.05.2020.

¶23

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was initially being given wages of Rs.1922/- per month and from the year 2017 till 30.05.2020, the petitioner was being given Rs.15,900/- in terms of the Office Order dated 11.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.4.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner should have been paid his wages of Rs.15,900/- for the period from 1992 to 2017 also.

¶25

The petitioner’s counsel also prays that a direction should be issued to the respondents for handing over possession of the land taken from the petitioner’s wife in 1992. The petitioner’s further prayer is that his service as a Muster Roll worker should have been regularized from the year 1992.

¶26

Ms. D.S. Neog and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioner has no right to be regularized in terms of the judgment & order of the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Assam & Ors. -Vs- Shri Upen Das & 836 Ors. , Writ Appeal No.45/2014, which was disposed of on 08.06.2017. They also submit that the handing over of the land given by the petitioner’s wife cannot be a subject matter of the present writ petition, especially when the owner of the land is not the writ petitioner.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶28

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Assam & Ors. -Vs- Shri Upen Das & 836 Ors. , Writ Appeal No.45/2014, had held that the Muster Roll workers do not have any right to be

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

regularized. Further, the Division Bench in Paragraph 22 of the said judgment held that Muster Roll workers, Casual workers, etc., would be given the minimum pay scale given to the regularized workers in terms of the concession made by the State Government. The Office Order dated 11.11.2019, which provides that fixed wages/remuneration of Rs.15,900/with Dearness Allowance (DA) would be paid to the Muster Roll workers from 01.12.2018 and arrear claim from 01.08.2017 to 30.11.2018 would be considered after Cabinet approval, has not been put to challenge by the petitioner. As such, there is no question of giving retrospective effect to the Office Order dated 11.11.2019. The petitioner has also not been able to show as to why he should be given the fixed wages/remuneration of Rs.15,900/- prior to the year 2017, especially when the Office Order dated 11.11.2019 only provides for payment of the said fixed wages of Rs.15,900/- from 01.12.2018 and arrear claim from 01.08.2017, which was subject to Cabinet approval.

¶31

The question of the State respondents handing back land to the petitioner’s wife can only be considered if the petitioner’s wife makes a claim for the same as per law.

¶32

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

J U D G E

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Suren Saikia v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suren Saikia v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibon Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bhagirathi Kairi Vs J.B.Ekka and Anr.

Siemngul Hmar and 27 Ors. Vs Nitin Khade and 2 Ors.

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nabajyoti Borah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smt. Bijaya Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.