Gautam Dekaraja and 4 Ors. Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010245882023

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:7691

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6478/2023

¶6

GAUTAM DEKARAJA AND 4 ORS. SON OF LATE NANDARAM DEKARAJA, RESIDENT OF APDCL OFFICE COLONY, HOJAI, P.O.- HOJAI, DIST- HOJAI, PIN- 782435.

¶7

2: CHOITANYA RAY SON OF LATE CHITTA RANJAN RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MATIKHOLA P.O.- SINGARI BASTI HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.

¶8

3: JITEN SAINARY SON OF LATE BISHARAM SANIARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HOJAI DAKHIN BIDYANAGAR HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION P.O.- HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.

¶9

4: RINKU BORAH SON OF LATE SUSHIL CH. BORAH HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION P.O.- HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.

¶10

5: HARERAM SAHU SON OF SIBAMONI SAHU RESIDENT OF RAMPUR P.O.- AMTOLA P.O.- HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781001.

¶13

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶14

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001.

¶15

Page No.# 2/10

¶16

3:THE CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE-B APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR

¶17

GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001.

¶18

4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001.

¶19

5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶20

HOJAI ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL (CAR) HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.

¶21

6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAON ELECTRICLA CIRCLE APDCL (CAR) NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001.

¶22

7:SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL HOJAI NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B BHUYAN, MR J DAS,MR A TALUKDAR,MS P.BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,

¶24

BEFORE

¶25

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶26

Date of hearing : 09.06.2025

¶27

Date of Judgment: 09.06.2025

¶28

Judgment & order(Oral)

¶29

Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶30

2. The petitioners, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, have presented a challenge to a speaking order, dated 10.08.2023, passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting their claim for higher wages by way of formulation of special economic package, in terms of the directions passed by

¶31

Page No.# 3/10

¶32

this Court vide order, dated 10.01.2022, in WP(c)1321/2020, and other analogous matters.

¶33

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners, herein, are working as Sahayak(outsourced) in Hojai Electrical Sub-Division of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited. The petitioners have contended that they have been so engaged w.e.f. 16.05.2016, and have been continuously rendering their services in the capacity of Sahayak(outsourced) in the said Sub-Division.

¶34

4. Persons similarly situated like the petitioners, herein, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1351/2020, inter alia, praying for regularization of their services. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 23.02.2021, disposed of the said writ petition by directing that if the petitioners, therein, are found to have been working for more than 10(ten) years upto 10.04.2006 against sanctioned posts, their services would be regularized as an one-time measure. It was further provided that if any of the petitioners, therein, are found to have not worked for more than 10(ten) years upto 10.04.2006 but have worked for more than 10(ten) years till the date of passing of the order; the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited authorities may consider them for authorizing to them, salary, at least in the minimum of the pay scale that is otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee. It was also provided that the petitioners, therein, who had not worked continuously for 10(ten) years till the date of passing of the said judgment & order, the respondents Assam Power Distribution Company Limited may consider formulating a suitable economic package for such petitioners as per the acceptability of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited authorities.

¶35

Page No.# 4/10

¶36

5. Persons similarly situated like the petitioners, herein, also instituted a writ petition being WP(c)1321/2020, seeking regularization of their services and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10.01.2022, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition in the same manner as the earlier writ petition being WP(c)1351/2020, was so disposed of.

¶37

6. The petitioners, herein, thereafter, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)848/2022, and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 24.05.2023, noticing the observations made in the judgment & order, dated 23.02.2021, passed in WP(c)1351/2020; proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the petitioners to submit appropriate representations in the matter along with the supporting documents, enclosing a certified copy of the order therewith. The respondent authorities were also directed to examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in paragraph No. 11 of the judgment & order, dated 23.02.2021, and dispose of the representation by way of a reasoned order.

¶38

7. The petitioners, herein, in terms of the directions passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 24.05.2023, in WP(c)848/2022, submitted a representation, dated 29.05.2023, before the Chief General Manager, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, inter alia, praying therein, for compliance of the directions so passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In response thereto, the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, vide a speaking order, dated 10.08.2023, proceeded to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, herein, and on examination of the same, in the light of the directions passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; proceeded to reject

¶39

Page No.# 5/10

¶40

the prayer made by the petitioners, herein, by contending that there are around 806 similarly situated persons like the petitioners and the total financial involvement, in the event of enhancement of their wages work-out to Rs. 21,85,87,200/-(Rupees Twenty One Cores Eighty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred) only, per annum, which was held to be unbearable by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited considering its financial status.

¶41

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, herein, have instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

¶42

9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶43

10. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, have contended that they have been serving in the capacity of Sahayak (outsourced) w.e.f. 16.05.2016, in the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, without break. However, the said position was disputed by the authorities of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and basing on the payment records, they were found to be serving for much lesser period of time in service than what was claimed by them in the writ petition.

¶44

11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 23.02.2021, passed in WP(c)1351/2020, while disposing of the said writ petition, had issued the following directions:

¶45

“ 10. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the

¶46

Page No.# 6/10

¶47

respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014.

¶48

11. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, we request the respondent APDCL to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered accordingly.”

¶49

12. The above directions were again reiterated by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10.01.2022, passed in WP(c)1321/2020, and therein, had directed as under:

¶50

“ 10. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014.

¶51

11. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, we request the respondent APDCL to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered accordingly.”

¶52

13. The petitioners, herein, had, thereafter, approached this Court by way of instituting WP(c)848/2022, and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 24.05.2023, had proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition with the following directions:

¶53

“ In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claims made in the writ petition, this petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observation made in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2021 as quoted above. Facilitating the above, the petitioners to submit proper representations along with supporting documents before the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from today, by enclosing a certified copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, as directed above, the respondents will examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the observation made in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a further period of three months thereafter.”

¶54

Page No.# 7/10

¶55

14. The representation as submitted by the petitioners, herein, in the matter in terms of the directions passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 24.05.2023, in WP(c)848/2022, was taken-up for consideration by the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, and vide a speaking order, dated 10.08.2023; the same came to be disposed of, rejecting the claim made by the petitioners in the said representation.

¶56

15. The observations made in the speaking order, dated 10.08.2023, being of relevance, is extracted hereinbelow:

¶57

“ That an Order identical to the aforesaid Order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.02.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 1351/2020, which was instituted by Sri Sanjib Das & Ors. from Karimganj District. The APDCL in terms of the Order dated 23.02.2021 initially decided to grant benefit to the petitioners in the said writ petition. However, in the meantime, several other writ petitions came to be disposed of and it was found that the number of petitioners claiming identical relief altogether amounts to 806. The APDCL thereafter examined the claim made by the present writ petitioners in their case. From such examination it was found that none of the petitioners have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 in order to get benefit of regularization, both in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Uma Devi as well as in terms of the Orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court.

¶58

As regards placing the petitioners into the other category, for giving them a suitable economic package if they have not completed 10 years of service, the details have been collected and it appears that as how, persons seeking identical prayer amounted to 806 and total financial involvement in the event of enhancement of wages to those persons, including the present two petitioners amounts approximately to Rs 21,85,87,200/- (Rupees Twenty One Cores Eighty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred) per annum. The present financial status of the APDCL is such that the Company would not be able to bear such a huge financial burden. It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State Of Kerala v Uma Devi & Ors has inter alia stated in para 17 that:

¶59

"One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality or of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The State work out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can the Court impose upon the State a financial burden if this nature by insisting on regularisation or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being temporarily or casually employed in a public sector undertaking The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. It is not as if this had not happened. So, the Court ought not to

¶60

Page No.# 8/10

¶61

impose a financial burden on the State by such direction, as such directions may turn counter-productive."

¶62

Moreover, there are more than 800 identically placed persons, and the APDCL would not be in a position to single out the petitioners for granting a special economic package by ignoring the claims of the other similarly placed persons.

¶63

Regarding the order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.A No 45/2014(State of Assam -vsUpen Das), it is seen that the Government Of Assam on its own volition had decided to grant higher wages to contractual employees under various departments.”

¶64

16. During the hearing of the present proceeding, Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, has placed on record, an Office Order, dated 02.12.2023, wherein, it was contended that on due consideration of the long standing demand of the outsourced workers and keeping in mind the current financial condition of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and after due approval of the Government of Assam as well as the Board of Directors of the Company, it was decided to enhance the remuneration of the outsourced workers, who are getting direct payment from the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited. Accordingly, basing on the tenure of such outsourced employees, the monthly remuneration of such employees was now fixed between the range of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. to Rs. 18,000/- p.m..

¶65

17. In view of the Office Order, dated 02.12.2023, it is seen that the present writ petitioners would also be entitled to enhanced wages. However, the tenure of services claimed to have been so rendered by the petitioners, herein, being disputed by the respondents; the authorities of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, would now be required to ascertain the actual tenure of the services rendered by each of the petitioners, in the present proceeding, and thereafter, on such determination being made to place them in appropriate category as set-out in the said Office Order, dated 02.12.2023.

¶66

Page No.# 9/10

¶67

Basing on such placement, the petitioners would be entitled to the higher monthly remuneration corresponding to the category where they are now placed.

¶68

18. In view of the above position and considering the fact that the authorities of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, have, on their own, now enhanced the wages of the persons similarly situated like the petitioners, herein; the contentions raised in the speaking order, dated 10.08.2023, would no longer be applicable and accordingly, the said speaking order, dated 10.08.2023, stands set aside and quashed.

¶69

19. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, would now submit individual representation before the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, i.e. respondent No. 2, herein, staking a claim for being released monthly wages in terms of the Office Order, dated 02.12.2023. The petitioners, in the said representation, shall bring on record, necessary materials to establish the tenure of the services rendered by each of them in the capacity of Sahayak (outsourced) with the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited.

¶70

20. The respondent No. 2, herein, on receipt of such representation from the petitioners, shall consider the same and after ascertaining the tenure of the services rendered by them in the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, shall place them in their appropriate category now brought into place by the Office Order, dated 02.12.2023, and release to them, their due monthly wages accordingly. The Office Order, dated 02.12.2023, having provided that the petitioners, herein, would be entitled to the enhanced monthly remuneration w.e.f. 01.12.2023; the petitioners, on completion of the exercise directed to

¶71

Page No.# 10/10

¶72

be carried-out hereinabove, would be entitled to receive their monthly remuneration at the enhanced rate, w.e.f. 01.12.2023.

¶73

21. The representation that would be now filed by the petitioners, herein, in terms of this order, be disposed of by the authorities of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On such disposal of the representation of the petitioners; they would be entitled to receive their enhanced wages corresponding to the category they are so placed in. The arrears of the monthly remuneration due to the petitioners, herein, w.e.f. 01.12.2023, shall be released to them within a period of 3(three) months thereafter.

¶74

22. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶75

JUDGE

¶76

Comparing Assistant

Gautam Dekaraja and 4 Ors. v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Dekaraja and 4 Ors. v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 6 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Star Cement Meghalaya Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dipen Hazarika Vs State Bank of India and 8 Ors.

Simanta Pradip Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kamal Kumar Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ramani Kakati Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Om International and Anr. Vs Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited and 7 Ors.