Dairy Prasad Upadhayay Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010031052025

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1099/2025

¶6

DAIRY PRASAD UPADHAYAY

¶7

RETIRED SENIOR HINDI TEACHER, MOHURAMUKH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GOI.AGHAT, RESIDENT OF KOHORA, P.O- KAZIRANGA NANONAL PARK, GOLAGHAT DISTRICT, ASSAM, PIN --785609

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE ASSAM, CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶11

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM

¶13

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶14

4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶15

GOLAGHAT DISTRICT CIRCLE GOLAGHAT

¶16

5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K DAS, MR A I TALUKDAR

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, FINANCE

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 10.03.2025

¶23

Heard Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2-4 and Mr. B. Deori, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Chaliha learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶24

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Dairy Prasad Upadhayay has prayed for setting aside the order, bearing No. B(3) S 485/96/314 dated 13.06.2000, issued by the respondent whereby 82 Hindi Teachers, appointed on ad-hoc basis in Secondary Schools were allowed to draw the basic pay of only Rs.3580/ p.m. without any incremental benefit and also for setting aside the order, bearing Memo No. ELC/Cont. (C) 1676/2005/158/163, dated 11.04.2007, issued by the respondent Education Department and for setting aside the order bearing Memo No. ELC/WP(C) 1676/2005/153/208, dated 19.06.2009, and to extend the same benefit to the petitioner in terms of Govt. letter dated 10.10.2022, allowing enhancement of scale of pay w.e.f. 01.03.1999, and also to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the arrear amount forthwith and to pass similar order dated 06.03.2017 passed WP(C) 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) 6210/2010.

¶25

3. The grievance of the petitioner, being sought to be addressed herein this

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

petition is that he was appointed as Hindi Teachers on 31.08.1994, at a fixed pay scale, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, during the 8^th Plan, creating 500 posts for expansion of Hindi Language. During the 9^th Plan the Central Govt. had declined to bear the expenditure of those teachers and shifted the liability to the State Govt. Thereafter, the State Govt. had abolished those 500 posts and created 401 posts in usual scale, under Non-Plan, head with effect from 01.03.1999 and thereafter, accommodated the existing Hindi Teachers against the newly created posts, initially 377 posts and subsequently against 24 posts, by the Director of Secondary Education, including the petitioner. Thereafter, 319 Hindi Teachers were allowed to draw regular scale of pay @ Rs.3580-8750/ with effect from 01.03.1999, as they were appointed in the provincialised Secondary Schools, but remaining teachers were allowed to draw Rs.3580/ p.m. as fixed pay, without any incremental benefits, as they were appointed on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner was in 82 teachers who had drawn fixed scale of pay. Thereafter, some of the teachers had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) 6210/ 2010, which were disposed of on 06.03.2017, holding such discrimination arbitrary, illegal and without any reasonable nexus. Thereafter, the Govt. vide order dated 10.10.2022, had granted the petitioners of those petition enhanced pay scale with effect from 01.03.1999. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is also entitled to scale of pay, with effect from 01.03.1999, and similar service benefits with other similarly circumstanced Hindi Teachers, as the scheme of their initial appointments were same. And to grant same service benefit in terms of Govt. letter dated 10.10.2022. Though the petitioner had filed one representation on 07.02.2025, seeking similar treatment like that of the petitioners in WP(C) 6279/2012 and WP(C) 6210/2010, but the same failed to evoke any response.

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order of this Court, dated 06.03.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/2010 and as such it is contended to grant similar benefit to the present petitioner, like the petitioners in those cases.

¶30

5. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik, on instruction submits that the petitioner herein can be granted similar benefits as granted to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/2010.

¶31

6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both sides I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also I have gone through the order of this Court, dated 06.03.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/2010.

¶32

7. It appears that the basic facts here in this case are not disputed. The petitioner was in the list of 82 teachers whose services were not regularised and left out of purview of Notification dated 12.10.1999, and they were given the basic pay of Rs. 3580/ p.m. without any incremental benefits. Later on the Govt. had adjusted 76 teachers out of 82 teachers against sanctioned vacant posts in the provincialised High/Higher Secondary School, with prospective effect from the year 2009. And thereafter, some of the teachers had filed two writ petitions being WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/2010, wherein this Court vide order dated 06.03.2007 held such discrimination arbitrary, illegal and without any reasonable nexus. Thereafter, the Govt. vide order dated 10.10.2022, had granted the petitioners of those petition enhanced pay scale with effect from 01.03.1999.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

8. Further it appears that the present petitioner is similarly circumstanced with those of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/2010, and as such, he is also entitled to similar benefits granted to the petitioners in those writ petitions.

¶35

9. It also appears that the present petitioner had filed one representation on 07.02.2025, seeking similar treatment like that of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6279/ 2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/ 2010, but the same failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities.

¶36

10. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati, i.e. respondent No.3, to make necessary verification of the service particulars of the petitioner and in the event of being found the petitioner similarly situated, like those of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6279/2012 and WP(C) No. 6210/ 2010, then to grant similar relief(s) to him which were granted to the petitioners in those petitions.

¶37

11. This exercise has to be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3, with in a period of one week from today.

¶38

12. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Dairy Prasad Upadhayay v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dairy Prasad Upadhayay v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Judy H. Lalmuanpuii Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)

Sh. Rosangliana Vs Smt. Lalhriattiri and 6 Ors.

Sh. Rosangliana Vs Smt. Lalhriattiri and 6 Ors.

Dr. Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Bhabakrishna Barman Vs the State of Assam

PRINCIPAl and Anr. Vs Dr. Nirmala Devi and 3 Ors.