Dismissed

Smti. a Chakraborty v. the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2025WP(C)/250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization and scale of pay for a long-serving work charge labour. Court directed State authorities to consider the petitioner's representation with 3 months' time, noting a government committee report on wage revision and precedents granting equal pay.

What did the court decide?

Directed State to consider petitioner's representation within 3 months of receipt of fresh service details.

Smti. a Chakraborty Vs the State of Nagaland… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC020005972023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/250/2023

¶5

SMTI. A CHAKRABORTY D/O LATE S BHATTACHARJEE R/O PWD COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND

¶8

2:THE COMMISIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND

¶9

DEPT. OF NPWD (R AND B) KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER NPWD(R AND B) KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) DIVISION DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶12

5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE PWD(R AND B) DHANSIRIPAR SUB DIVISION DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶13

-----------Advocate for : TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 03-03-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Toshitemjen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶19

The case of the petitioner leading to the filing of this writ petition is that vide order No.DPR/2/2000-01/222-28 dated 10.11.2000, he was appointed as Work Charge Labour at fixed pay of Rs.750/- per month, under the establishment of the Sub Divisional Officer PWD (R&B) Dhansiripar, Dimapur, Nagaland. His monthly salary was enhanced from Rs.750/- to Rs.5200/- per month, and continued in service in the same post since then. However, even after completion of more than 23 years of service in the department, his service has neither been regularized nor given scale of pay, whereas the case of others similarly situated person have already been considered and given scale of pay.

¶20

Under the circumstances, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent No.3 by submitting representation dated 11.8.2023, with a request for giving equal pay for equal work and to give him scale of pay. According to the petitioner, he is discharging the same duty as in the case of the other Grade-IV employees, who are under the same establishment and enjoying the scale of pay. Therefore, he should also be allowed to enjoy the same scale of pay. However,

¶21

Page No.# 3/5 the petitioner’s representation has not been attended and considered by the authorities till date.

¶22

Aggrieved by non-consideration of his representation, the petitioner have filed the instant writ petition seeking direction against the respondent authorities to consider his case for grant of minimum scale of pay as in the case of the other grade IV employees.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has given reliefs to similarly situated employees in WP(C)165(K)/2018,WP(C)166(K)/2018,WP(C)167(K)/2018,

¶24

W.P(C)168(K)/2018 and in W.P.(C)119/2020 wherein similarly situated employees under the Government of Nagaland were granted scale of pay. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by judgment and order dated 14.9.2022, passed in WA 25/2022 filed by the State of Nagaland against the order of the learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal has observed that “… the writ petitioners performs the same nature of works and duties as that discharged by regular Sweepers and is entitled to equal pay as that received by the regular Sweepers…” and directed the state respondents to carry out the orders of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned decided cases and therefore, prays that the present petitioner be given similar relief.

¶25

However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has submitted representation before the concerned authorities for grant of scale of

¶26

Page No.# 4/5 pay, the respondents may be directed to dispose of the same by giving him a scale of pay as has been given to the similarly situated persons.

¶27

Ms. S. Mere, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the state submits that there are many similar cases pending before this Court, and in this regard the Government has now constituted a committee who has submitted report on the issue of regulation of pay, remuneration and condition of service of contingency and fixed paid employees. She further submits that in the meeting held on 29.01.2025, chaired by the Chief Secretary the Committee while reviewing the status of the Committee Report has decided that in the interim, “…the wages be raised by 50% of the current remuneration for those drawing equal or less than Rs.7050, which is the highest slab of the current minimum wage.Further, all employees drawing less than the current minimum wage shall be entitled to the minimum of the current rate plus 50% irrespective of the current remuneration…” The above decision however, are being placed before the Cabinet, therefore, if the petitioners are satisfied with the current decision on the Committee report, the matter may be placed after the decision of the Cabinet. However, since the petitioners has limited prayer at this stage for disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the State respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation by giving sufficient time to the government to dispose the petitioner’s representation taking into account the decision on the Committe report in this regard.

¶28

Page No.# 5/5 8. In view of the above submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to examined and disposed of the representation submitted by the petitioner taking into account that the State has taken some decisions regarding regulation of pay remuneration and condition of fixed pay employees and also considering that the similarly situated employees have already been granted reliefs in compliance of the direction by our own High Court in the above referred cases. 9. The petitioner may also submit a fresh representation giving his service detail along with copy of this order, and the State respondents shall dispose of the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such fresh representation along with a copy of this order.

¶29

With the above observations and direction, the writ petitions stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Smti. a Chakraborty v. the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. a Chakraborty v. the State of Nagaland and 4 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

Puto Bui Vs The State of Ap

Ms Binita Mili Vs The State of Ap

Mofijul Haque Vs The State of Ap

Shri Pau-E Phom Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Shri Khekaho Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Dr. J Alam, IAS and 2 Ors. Vs Vizadel Yongo and Anr.