Tankeswar Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sri Tankeswar Boruah, S/o – Late Madan Boruah Aged about 50 years, Village-Dariagaon, P.O.-Kamalabari, PIN-785106, District-Majuli. …….. Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Assam, Represented by The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, (Elementary) Dispur, Guwahati-781006, District-Kamrup(M), Assam. 2. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Chief Minister‟s Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-06 3. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-781019. 4. District Elementary Education, Jorhat/Majuli. 5. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, Kamalabari, PIN-785106. 6. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Page 2 of 23

¶20

Guwahati. 7. The Accountant General (A&E),

¶21

Assam, Guwahati-29.

¶22

…….Respondents

¶23

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. K. Kalita. . Advocate for the respondents : Mr. B. Kaushik, SC, Elem. Edu. (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5) Mr. A. Chaliha, S.C., Finance, (Respondent No. 6) Mr. B. Sarma, S.C., A.G. (Respondent No. 7) Date of hearing : 26.08.2025. Date of judgment : 15.09.2025

¶24

- B E F O R E-

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶26

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶27

Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the petitions, and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP(C) No. 2976/2023. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam (A.G.), for the respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 8342/2022.

¶28

Page 3 of 23

¶29

2. Two writ petitions No. WP(C) No. 2976/2023 and WP(C) No. 8342/2022, both are preferred by the petitioner, namely, Shri Tankeswar Boruah. In WP(C) No. 2976/2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has praying for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to grant minimum scale of pay, in terms of the Judgment of this Court dated 08.06.2017, in Writ Appeal No. 45/2014 ( State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Shri Upen Das and 836 Ors. ), and the Notification, dated 03.10.2019, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department; and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioner‟s engagement in the post of Night Chowkidar, in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, Kamalabari, till his normal age of superannuation.

¶30

2.1 In WP(C) No. 2976/2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.04.2023, issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools (i/c), Majuli and also the letter dated 05.03.2023, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and to allow him to continue in the post of Night Chowkidar in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli.

¶31

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the petitions are briefly stated as under –

¶32

“The petitioner was temporarily engaged on daily wage basis, in the Officer of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli on 01.02.2000. As per the said engagement letter, the petitioner was allowed to draw a fixed scale of pay @ Rs. 416/per month. Subsequently, the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis, by issuing fresh engagement order and since

¶33

Page 4 of 23

¶34

2000, he has been discharging his duty with utmost dedication and sincerity, without any break. The respondent authorities have been utilizing the services of the petitioner since 2000, by paying him fix pay @ Rs. 416/- per month only; and though he was assured that his service will be regularized after completion of 10 years of service, but they have not taken any steps for regularization of his service; and on the belief that his service will be regularized after completion of 10 years, he has been rendering his services without any protest. Since, after elapse of 10 years, no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner, he had submitted several representations before the respondent authorities for granting him minimum wages, as well as regularization of his service, but even after elapse of 22 years of service, the respondent authorities have neither taken any steps to regularize his service nor he has been paid the minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforementioned petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶35

During pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, on 16.05.2023, the Inspector of Schools (I/C), Majuli had served one backdated order, dated 18.04.2023, to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was released from all temporary engagement at the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, on the basis of a purported letter dated 05.03.2023,

¶36

Page 5 of 23

¶37

issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam; whereby the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli was directed to take immediate steps to release the petitioner by issuing a Speaking Order, as per Government Rules and procedures, by 18.04.2023; and since the petitioner‟s petition for not to disturb his engagement in the current post, till his normal superannuation age, is still pending before this Court, the respondent officials cannot initiate a parallel proceeding; and it is well settled that when the Court is in-seisin of a matter, an administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter at its own ipse dixit, as it will amount to directly interfering with the dispensation of justice by the Courts of law. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the order dated 18.04.2023, which was served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2023; and also the letter, dated 05.03.2023. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, without taking leave of this Court, the respondent authorities have released the petitioner and before releasing him, they have not given him any opportunity of being heard and thereby, violated the principles of natural justice.”

¶38

4. The respondent authorities, in WP(C) No. 8342/2022, had not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. However, in WP(C) No. 2976/2023, the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, had filed his affidavit-in-opposition wherein, a stand has been taken that though the petitioner claimed to have been engaged on daily wage basis on 01.02.2000, @ Rs. 416/- per month; yet, as per the report

¶39

Page 6 of 23

¶40

of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, dated 17.05.2024, the engagement order is not available in his Office and that, the fresh engagement order issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, is also not available in the Office. And as per the Certificate of Deputy Inspector of Schools, issued on 08.02.2013; it has been stated that the petitioner has been serving as a casual employee since 01.02.2000, and he has been paid a lump sum of rupees, as per allotment of fund received from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. But, no formal appointment was issued from any competent authority. It is also stated that the Deputy Inspector of Schools is not the competent authority to engage any private person in the Office or School, as per Government Rules and that, there is no such Government provision for direct recruitment by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and as such, engagement of a private person in a Government establishment is illegal and violative of Government Rule and Procedure and hence, the petitioner cannot claim for regularization of his service; and besides, he has not been engaged in any sanctioned post, rather, he was engaged in wages, in a lump sum daily basis. Further stand of the respondent No. 2 is that no formal appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority and he was released by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli on 18.04.2023; as per instruction of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide letter dated 05.03.2023, and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶41

5. The petitioner, in his affidavit-in-reply, denied the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. It is stated that the engagement of the petitioner was forwarded to

¶42

Page 7 of 23

¶43

the Director of Elementary Education, Assam; who is, as such, aware of the engagement of the petitioner and the engagement order that has been annexed by the petitioner as „Annexure-1‟ to the writ petition, which makes it discernible that the said engagement order was also marked to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, and after utilizing the petitioner‟s services for so many years, the respondent now cannot take the plea that the said formal appointment order was not issued from the competent authority; and that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, vide its letter dated 18.11.2017, forwarded the petitioner‟s application to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, and it was stated therein that the petitioner‟s length of service was 17 years 8 months 30 days at that time and the petitioner was shown as a Fixed Pay Worker; and that, in terms of the letter dated 05.03.2023, neither any Speaking Order was issued while discharging him nor he was given any opportunity of being heard and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.

¶44

6. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis @ Rs. 416/- per month in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools with effect from 01.02.2000, and various documents, being enclosed with the petition, goes to show that the tenure of the petitioner was extended from time to time, and the respondent authorities had utilized his services for more than 22 years and thereafter, the respondent authorities had discharged him, without affording an opportunity of being heard and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.

¶45

Page 8 of 23

¶46

6.1. Referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), Mr. Kalita submits that the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph No. 22, has directed the State Government to pay minimum of the pay-scale to Muster Roll Workers, Work-charged Workers and similarly placed employees, working since last 10 years (not in sanctioned post), w.e.f. 01.08.2017, and that the action of the respondent authorities, in discharging the petitioner is contrary to the observation made by this Court and also by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. Referring to another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Akaddas Ali Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2014) 4 GLR 3 ; Mr. Kalita submits that when the Court is in-seisin of the matter, then the administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject and record a finding, as it would amount to interfering with the dispensing of justice by the Court. Under such circumstances, Mr. Kalita has contended to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023, which, according to him is a backdated order; served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2023, by the Inspector of Schools (i/c), Majuli and also the letter dated 05.03.2023, and to reinstate the petitioner in his present post and also to grant him the minimum scale of pay till his retirement.

¶47

6. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel in the Elementary Education Department has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Kaushik has pointed out that the very engagement of the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, is illegal, as he has no authority under the rule, to engage a private person and since the very

¶48

Page 9 of 23

¶49

appointment of the petitioner is illegal, he is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this petition and that, having noticed the illegality in appointment and payment of the petitioner, the Director of Elementary Education, vide letter dated 05.03.2023 (Annexure-12) of the WP(C) No. 2976/2023; has directed to take immediate and stringent steps to release the private person from his Office by issuing a Speaking Order, as per Government Rule and Procedure; and pursuant to said letter, the In-charge Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, vide order dated 18.04.2023, has released the petitioner from all the temporary engagements, from the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli and under such circumstances, Mr. Kaushik submits that there is no merit in this petition and the reliefs claimed for cannot be granted to the petitioner and therefore, it is contended to dismiss both the writ petitions.

¶50

7. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through both the petitions and the documents placed on both the records, and also perused the Annexure11 in WP(C) No. 2976/2023, whereby the petitioner was released from all temporary engagement from the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools (i/c), Majuli; and also perused Annexure-12 in WP(C) No. 2976/2023, the letter of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati, dated 05.03.2023; and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Upen Das (supra), and another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akaddas Ali(supra); and also gone through the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), and also

¶51

Page 10 of 23

¶52

perused the „annexure series‟ enclosed by the petitioner in both the petitions.

¶53

8. A cursory perusal of Annexure-11, the dis-engagement order of the petitioner, issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and also the Annexure-12, the letter of the Director of Elementary Education; goes to show that the petitioner was engaged in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools on daily wage basis. Had he not been engaged, the question of disengagement of the petitioner would not have risen for the respondent authorities.

¶54

8.1. Moreover, perusal of various annexure, so enclosed in both the petitions, goes to show that he was engaged in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of School, Majuli temporarily on daily wage basis on 01.02.2000, and he continued to serve in the said capacity till his alleged discharge on 18.04.2023, and he had been paid a lump sum amount for the same. Further, perusal of the letter, dated 05.03.2023, of the Director of Elementary Education (Annexure-12) indicates that in the said letter, the Director had asked the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, to take immediate and stringent steps to release the private person from the office by a Speaking Order, as per Government Rule and Procedure.

¶55

8.2. But, it appears that while issuing the order, dated 18.04.2023, the Deputy Inspector of Schools had simply released the petitioner from all temporary engagement, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard to him and on such count, the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, seems to have been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and on this count alone, the impugned order

¶56

Page 11 of 23

¶57

dated 18.04.2023, fails to withstand legal scrutiny and is liable to be interfered with.

¶58

9. It is also to be noted here that in paragraph No. 19 of the WP(C) No. 2976/2023, the petitioner has categorically stated that the order dated 18.04.2023, is a backdated order. Similar statement is also being made in the prayer No. (a), in paragraph No. 32 of the said writ petition, that the order dated 18.04.2024 is a backdated order.

¶59

9.1. However, the respondent authorities have not filed any affidavitin-opposition in this petition controverting the aforementioned statement made by the petitioner. Since the statement made in paragraph No. 19 and also in prayer No. (a), in paragraph No. 32 of the WP(C) No. 2976/2023, by the petitioner, remained untraversed, the same has to be accepted as „admission‟.

¶60

10. Further, it appears that the said impugned order (Annxure-11) and the letter (Annexure-12), were issued when the WP(C) No. 8342/2022 was pending before this Court, wherein, the petitioner has prayed for granting him minimum scale of pay and also for regularization of his services, and also not to disturb him till his age of superannuation; and while this Court is in-seisin of the matter, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli have started a parallel proceeding in administrative side, which is not permissible in law in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akaddas Ali(supra). In the said case, it has been observed that when the Court is in seisin of a matter, an administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very

¶61

Page 12 of 23

¶62

same subject matter and record a finding. It would amount to interfering with the dispensation of justice by the Court.

¶63

10.1. And exactly this has happened in the present case. And on such count also, the impugned order, dated 18.04.2023 and the letter of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 05.03.2023 (Annexures 11 & 12), are liable to be interfered with; for interfering with the dispensation of justice by this Court. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out during the course of argument and this Court finds sufficient force in his submission.

¶64

11. It also appears that the petitioner has been engaged on monthly remuneration @ Rs. 416/-. He was neither paid the minimum wage, nor granted the scale of pay. In the Notification dated 03.10.2019, No. FEC1114/2014/414 (Annexure-7), issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Dispur; it has been stated that the Government has decided to pay the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees, working since last more than 10 years, fixed wages/remuneration of Rs. 15,900/- with Dearness Allowance (D.A.), along with medical allowance of Rs. 600/- per month.

¶65

12. It is also to mentioned here that a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shri Upen Das (supra), in paragraph No. 22 has observed as under :-

¶66

“It is, however, heartening to learn that the
State Government has agreed not to terminate the
Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed
employees working since last more than 10 years
(not in sanctioned post) till their normal
retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on

¶67

Page 13 of 23

¶68

ground of criminal offences. The State Government
has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health
and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which
will be prepared in consultation with the State
Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the
State Government taken a s welfare measures for
the betterment and security of the employees, in
question. We, accordingly, direct the State
Government to implement the measures without
further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of
decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab
vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, also direct
the State Government to pay minimum of the pay
scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers
and similarly placed employees working since last
more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) with
effect from 1.8.2017.”

¶69

13. In the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court has emphasized on payment of minimum scale of pay to the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees. Relevant observation is read as under:-

¶70

“54. The Full Bench of the High Court while
adjudicating upon the above controversy had
concluded that temporary employees were not
entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale,
merely for the reason, that the activities carried
on by daily wagers and regular employees were
similar. The Full Bench however, made two
exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in
either of the two exceptions, were held entitled
to wages at the minimum of the pay scale drawn by
regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the
Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned

¶71

Page 14 of 23

¶72

judgment are extracted hereunder : (Avtar Singh
case [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC
OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , SCC
OnLine P&H para 37)

¶73

“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.

¶74

(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual
appointees are not appointed against regular
sanctioned posts and their services are
availed continuously, with notional breaks,
by the State Government or its
instrumentalities for a sufficient long
period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers,
ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be
entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale
without any allowances on the assumption
that work of perennial nature is available
and having worked for such long period of
time, an equitable right is created in such
category of persons. Their claim for
regularisation, if any, may have to be
considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.

¶75

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to

¶76

Page 15 of 23

¶77

arrears for a period of three years and two
months.”

¶78

54.1. A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in
the impugned judgment (passed by the Full Bench),
reveals that the Full Bench carved out an
exception for employees who were not appointed
against regular sanctioned posts, if their
services had remained continuous (with notional
breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years. This
category of temporary employees was extended the
benefit of wages at the minimum of the regular pay
scale. In Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] , similarly, employees who had
rendered 10 years' service were granted an
exception (refer to para 53 of the judgment
extracted in the preceding paragraph). The above
position adopted by the High Court reveals, that
the High Court intermingled the legal position
determined by this Court on the subject of
regularisation of employees, while adjudicating
upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging under
the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. In
our view, it is this mix-up, which has resulted in
the High Court recording its afore-extracted
conclusions.

¶79

54.2. The High Court extended different wages to
temporary employees by categorising them on the
basis of their length of service. This is clearly
in the teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual
Labour case [Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of
India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 138] . In
the above judgment, this Court held that

¶80

Page 16 of 23

¶81

classification of employees based on their length
of service (those who had not completed 720 days
of service, in a period of 3 years; those who had
completed more than 720 days of service—with
effect from 1-4-1977; and those who had completed
1200 days of service), for payment of different
levels of wages (even though they were admittedly
discharging the same duties), was not tenable. The
classification was held to be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶82

54.3. Based on the consideration recorded
hereinabove, the determination in the impugned
judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High
Court, whereby it classified temporary employees
for differential treatment on the subject of
wages, is clearly unsustainable and is liable to
be set aside.

¶83

55. In view of all our above conclusions, the
decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High
Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [Avtar
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H
15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , dated 11-11-2011,
is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby
set aside. The decision rendered by the Division
Bench of the High Court in State of
Punjab v. Rajinder Singh [State of
Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 125]
is also liable to be set aside, and the same is
also hereby set aside. We affirm the decision
rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder
Kumar [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, 2010 SCC
OnLine P&H 13009] , with the modification that the
employees concerned would be entitled to the

¶84

Page 17 of 23

¶85

minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which
they belong, but would not be entitled to
allowances attached to the posts held by them.

¶86

56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary
employees before this Court.

¶87

57. There is no room for any doubt that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” has
emerged from an interpretation of different
provisions of the Constitution. The principle has
been expounded through a large number of judgments
rendered by this Court, and constitutes law
declared by this Court. The same is binding on all
the courts in India under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The parameters of the
principle have been summarised by us in para 42
hereinabove. The principle of “equal pay for equal
work” has also been extended to temporary
employees (differently described as work-charge,
daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the
like). The legal position, relating to temporary
employees has been summarised by us, in para 44
hereinabove. The above legal position which has
been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by
us yet again.

¶88

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of
labour. An employee engaged for the same work
cannot be paid less than another who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not,
in a welfare State. Such an action besides being
demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a

¶89

Page 18 of 23

¶90

lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so
to provide food and shelter to his family, at the
cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost
of his self-worth, and at the cost of his
integrity. For he knows that his dependants would
suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser
wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to
others similarly situate constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it
compels involuntary subjugation.

¶91

59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced
below:

¶92

“7. The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of just and favourable conditions of work which
ensure, in particular:

¶93

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a
minimum, with:

¶94

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

¶95

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

¶96

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

¶97

Page 19 of 23

¶98

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted
in his employment to an appropriate higher level,
subject to no considerations other than those of
seniority and competence;

¶99

(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as
well as remuneration for public holidays.”

¶100

(emphasis supplied)

¶101

India is a signatory to the above Covenant having
ratified the same on 10-4-1979. There is no escape
from the above obligation in view of different
provisions of the Constitution referred to above,
and in view of the law declared by this Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,
the principle of “equal pay for equal work”
constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is
vested in every employee—whether engaged on
regular or temporary basis.

¶102

60. Having traversed the legal parameters with
reference to the application of the principle of
“equal pay for equal work”, in relation to
temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,
contractual employees and the like), the sole
factor that requires our determination is, whether
the employees concerned (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities as
were being discharged by regular employees holding
the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would
require the application of the parameters of the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” summarised
by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the
instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is
not difficult for us to record the factual

¶103

Page 20 of 23

¶104

position. We say so, because it was fairly
acknowledged by the learned counsel representing
the State of Punjab, that all the temporary
employees in the present bunch of appeals were
appointed against posts which were also available
in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also
accepted that during the course of their
employment, the temporary employees concerned were
being randomly deputed to discharge duties and
responsibilities which at some point in time were
assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular
employees holding substantive posts were also
posted to discharge the same work which was
assigned to temporary employees from time to time.
There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that
the duties and responsibilities discharged by the
temporary employees in the present set of appeals
were the same as were being discharged by regular
employees. It is not the case of the appellants,
that the respondent employees did not possess the
qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of
the State that any of the temporary employees
would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the
principles summarised by us in para 42
hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be
applicable to all the temporary employees
concerned, so as to vest in them the right to
claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay
scale of regularly engaged government employees
holding the same post.

¶105

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in
holding that all the temporary employees

¶106

Page 21 of 23

¶107

concerned, in the present bunch of cases would be
entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay
scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay
scale), extended to regular employees holding the
same post.”

¶108

14. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds sufficient merit in both the writ petitions. And accordingly, both the writ petitions stands allowed, granting following relief:-

¶109

(i) The impugned order, 18.04.2023, so issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools (Annexure-11) and the impugned letter of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 05.03.2023 (Annexure-12) stands set aside and quashed.

¶110

(ii) The petitioner shall be re-instated from the date of his release, i.e., 18.04.2023, with all back wages;

¶111

(iii) He shall be allowed to continue his service till the date of his superannuation;

¶112

(iv) The petitioner shall be paid minimum scale of pay, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Upen Das (supra) and also in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra).

¶113

15. The exercise, mentioned herein above, shall be carried out within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this

¶114

Page 22 of 23

¶115

order and shall place the same before the respondent authorities, within a period of 2 (two) week from today.

¶116

16. In terms of the above, both the writ petitions stands disposed of; leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶117

JUDGE

¶118

Comparing Assistant

¶119

Page 23 of 23

Tankeswar Boruah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tankeswar Boruah v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Nirmal Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdur Rahman Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sheikh Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Kalpana Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sanatan Talukdar and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.