Rabin Ch Roy and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010090822022

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8122

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3157/2022

¶6

RABIN CH ROY AND 2 ORS.

¶7

S/O- LT. DHARANI KANTA ROY, R/O- VILL. GAURIPUR WARD NO. 4, P.O. AND DIST.- GAURIPUR, PIN- 783331, ASSAM.

¶8

2: TRIDIBESH ROY S/O- SATISH CH ROY R/O- SOUTH JOKERECHARA P.O. GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI PIN- 783334 ASSAM.

¶9

3: NARENDRA NATH ROY S/O- LT. PHANIDHAR NATH ROY R/O- MADHU SALUMARI P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI PIN- 783301 ASSAM

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶12

REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY (C) TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PHE DEPT., DISPUR GHY-6.

¶13

2:CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY-36. 3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) DHUBRI DIVISION DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM.

¶14

Page No.# 2/8

¶15

4:MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD GHY-5.

¶16

5:THE COMMISIIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (B) DEPARTMENT.

¶17

6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS D-BLOCK 2ND FLOOR JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH, MS M NEOG,MS B MAJUMDER

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, MR P NAYAK (R-6),MR. S P CHOUDHURY (R-4),MR R M DAS, ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶22

ORDER

¶23

08/06/2026

¶24

Heard Mr. M J Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I Borthakur, learned Standing counsel, Public Health Engineering Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Ms. M Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No. 5.

¶25

2. The petitioners in the present writ petition have raised a grievance with regard to the authorities in the Public Health Engineering Department not recognizing the regularisation of the services of the petitioners as effected during their tenure of service with the Assam Urban Water supply and Sewerage

¶26

Page No.# 3/8

¶27

Board.

¶28

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners, herein, were appointed as Khalasi-cum-Chowkidar in the work charged establishment under the Public Health Engineering Department on 29.03.1988. The petitioners during their such service with the Public Health Engineering Department, came to be transferred, along with the scheme against which, they were so working with the Assam Urban Water supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter, referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity).

¶29

4. The petitioners on joining the services of the Board, continued therein and they were considered for regularisation of their services. The work charged service rendered by the petitioners came to be regularised against Grade-III and Grade-IV post in the Board. As the petitioners were working as regular employees in the Board, they were again transferred back to the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 2011. On joining the Public Health Engineering Department, the regularisation orders passed in respect of the petitioners by the Board, was, however, not recognized and the petitioners were again required to work in the work charged/muster roll establishment.

¶30

5. The petitioners having continued in their services in the Public Health Engineering Department, had approached this Court by way of instituting the present writ petition, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reckon the regularisation of their services as granted by the Board, during the tenure of their services with the Board.

¶31

6. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, have already retired from their services on attaining the

¶32

Page No.# 4/8

¶33

age of superannuation.

¶34

7. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners, being engaged in the work charged establishment, prior to 01.04.1993, their cases for regularisation of their services was covered by the policy decision adopted by the Government in the year 2005. However, on account of the fact that during the said period, the petitioners were transferred to the establishment of the Board, their services were not considered for regularisation in the Public Health Engineering Department, when services of persons similarly situated like them, came to be so regularised.

¶35

8. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, on account of the dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the acceptance of the regularisation effected in respect of the services of the petitioners by the Board against GradeIII and Grade-IV post, submits that he would not be pressing the prayer made to direct the respondent authorities to reckon the said regularisation effected of their services by the Board for releasing to them their emoluments in the regular scale of pay as well as to compute the pension and pensionary benefits in respect of the petitioners, who have already retired.

¶36

9. Having made the said submissions, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, has referred to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee Vs. the State of Assam and Others, reported in 2026 INSC 523 and has prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioners, in terms of the said decisions.

¶37

10. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Standing counsel, Public Health

¶38

Page No.# 5/8

¶39

Engineering Department, submits that the regularisation of the services of the petitioners by the Board during their tenure of service therein, would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the Board is an autonomous body and the services rendered by the employees of the Board, is not deemed to be the services rendered in the Public Health Engineering Department. However, he submits that the petitioners having given up the said prayer, further consideration of the said issue would not be called to be made by this Court.

¶40

11. With regard to the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), Mr. Borthakur, learned Standing counsel, PHE Department submits that the respondent authorities be directed to carry out a verification with regard to the service particulars of the petitioners and in the event, they are found to be covered by the said decision, a direction be issued to the Public Health Engineering authorities to implement the said decision in respect of the petitioners, herein.

¶41

12. Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department submits that a verification is mandated to be carried out with regard to the service particulars of the petitioners, even in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).

¶42

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶43

14. The petitioners having not pressed the prayer made in the present writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reckon the regularisation effected in their respective cases by the authorities of the Assam

¶44

Page No.# 6/8

¶45

Urban Water supply and Sewerage Board during their tenure of service therein, the said prayer is not further considered by this Court.

¶46

15. With regard to the prayer made by the petitioners for regularisation of their services in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), this Court has perused the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) and finds that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-79 of the said judgment, had drawn the following conclusions and directions:

¶47

“79. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2013 is affirmed.

¶48

Consequently, we pass the following directions:

¶49

I. The appellants shall be treated as regularised in service in terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from the date on which similarly placed 30,000 employees were given benefit of the said Cabinet decision. II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the eligible appellants and, where necessary, create supernumerary posts to facilitate their regularization.

¶50

III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, and all applicable pensionary and post- retiral benefits in the same terms, as were extended to similarly situated 30,000 employees.

¶51

IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be granted notional regularization with consequential monetary benefits and arrears from the relevant date until their superannuation for the purpose of recalculating pension, gratuity, and terminal dues. V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and other benefits shall be

¶52

Page No.# 7/8

¶53

released to their legal heirs in accordance with law.

¶54

VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation and payment of all financial arrears, shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of this judgment.

¶55

VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the above directions shall only be applicable to the appellants who were working in the departments of the State before the cut-off date prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.”

¶56

16. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 96 proceeded to hold that the work charged employees shall be treated as a distinct class and their entitlement to pension and other post retirement benefits shall not be adversely effected by the judgment made in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further provided a liberty to the members of the appellant Association to agitate their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits before the State Government.

¶57

17. In view of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), more particularly, in para 76 thereof, read with the observations made in para 96 and 97, this Court directs the petitioners, herein, to submit individual representations before the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. On receipt of such representation from the petitioners, the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 76 of the decision in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) read with the

¶58

Page No.# 8/8

¶59

observations made in paras 96 and 97, thereof. On such consideration being made and the matter being also placed before the Finance Department for its consideration, a speaking order releasing to the petitioners their due entitled benefits, be passed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶60

18. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Comparing Assistant

Rabin Ch Roy and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabin Ch Roy and 2 Ors. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratul Sarmah Vs Paban Terang and 5 Ors.

Ismail Hussen Mondal Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Shanti Indane Service Vs Devashish Sharma

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anil Kumar Deuri Vs the State of Assam 4 Ors.

Siemngul Hmar and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.