Dismissed¶36

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Aug 2025WA/320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; BRO GREF Leading Hand (Admn.) denied pay parity with Overseers; pay scale Rs. 5,000-8,000/-; 6th Pay Commission diploma-linked eligibility; Recruitment Rules 1982 matriculation/three years experience; duties compared (casual worker mustering and civil works supervision vs security, discipline, liaison, administration); Single Judge judgment dated 02.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 2745/2019 ratified; Gauhati High Court; Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar with Justice Arun Dev Choudhury; decided 06.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court agrees with the learned Single Judge's conclusion that a Leading Hand (Admn.), not being part of the technical cadre of BRO, is not entitled to be extended the same scale of pay as has been extended to the Overseers. ¶35

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010181972024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WA/320/2024

¶6

MITHLESH KUMAR DEVEDI S/O LATE SHRIRAM DEVEDI,

¶7

RESIDENT OF EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM. PRESENTLY SERVING AS LEADING HAND (ADM. )A T507 SS AND TC (GREF), CHANDIGARH, C/O 56 A. PIN 930507

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD B WING 4TH FLOOR SENA BHAVAN NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

3:THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PG AND PENSIONS NEW DELHI- 110001

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN RING ROAD DELHI CANT. NEW DELHI- 110001

¶13

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP C/O 99 AP

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

For petitioner/applicant(s) : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Choudhury, CGC

¶16

– BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MRs. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

06.08.2025

¶18

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶19

We have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2745/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was rejected.

¶21

The appellant seeks parity of pay with Overseers.

¶22

To state the case of the appellant in short, he is an employee of the Border Road Organization (BRO) specifically serving in the General Reserve Engineering Force. He was initially appointed as a Pioneer and was promoted to the position of Painter and, ultimately, to the position of Leading Hand (NonTechnical) which, in present day parlance, is known as Leading Hand (Admn.).

¶23

The claim of the appellant is that the position of a Leading Hand (Admn.) is equivalent to that of an Overseer, sharing the same rank and responsibility. Under such circumstances, his claim is that he and the other persons in his category must be accorded the same pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, which is given to Overseers.

¶24

The learned Single Judge examined the claim of the appellant and found that for the position of Leading Hand (Admn.), one does not require any

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

diploma in Engineering, whereas diploma in engineering is an essential qualification for the position of Overseer.

¶27

So far as the duties are concerned, the Overseers are engaged in performing the duties of mustering of Casual Workers and supervising the Civil Engineering works related to road/bridges/building; whereas the duties attached to the post of Leading Hand (Admn.) relate to security of unit area, discipline of troops, liaison duties and other duties related with general administration and man-management. The nature and duties, as attached to the post of Leading Hand (Admn.) and to that of the post of Overseers are, thus, very different with different responsibilities, inviting no comparison.

¶28

It appears from the records that as per the 6^th Pay Commission recommendations, the Pay Scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- per month is to be given to the posts wherein one of the eligibility criteria prescribed for recruitment is the possession of diploma in a particular trade. For recruitment to the post of Leading Hand (Admn.), the basic qualification is not diploma and therefore, on a general reading of the recommendations, such pay scale would not be applicable to the Leading Hand (Admn).

¶29

Initially, non-diploma holders, who are promoted to the rank of Overseers, were not accorded the same Pay as was available to the Overseers with diploma, but later with the intervention of the Courts, the Overseers, whether with or without diploma, came to be paid the same salary under the Scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-.

¶30

The appellant admittedly does not possess diploma in engineering. His claim is based on the similar nature of work attached to his post, which is not correct.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

As already noted above, the educational qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of 1982 for direct recruitment to the post of Leading Hand (Admn.) is only matriculation, or three years experience in construction works/supervision of labour/man.

¶33

A comparison of the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the cadre of Leading Hand (Non-Technical) and Overseers would clearly reveal that it is different and the responsibilities too are different.

¶34

On this ground, the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected.

¶35

We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that a Leading Hand (Admn.), not being a part of the technical cadre of BRO, would not be entitled to be extended the same scale of pay as has been extended to the Overseers.

¶36

The appeal is therefore dismissed, ratifying the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge.

¶37

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minnatulla Mazumder @ Ninnatulla Mazumder Vs the Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam and 5 Ors.

Achyut Chandra Das and 290 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Chandra Shekhar E

Jaynab Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdul Kuddus Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Principal Secy. to the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and 5 Ors. Vs Jeevan Munda