Harmohan Chakravarty and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010128332023

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3517/2023

¶6

HARMOHAN CHAKRAVARTY AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE GODADHAR CHAKRAVARTY, RESIDENT OF PHE COLONY, DIPHU, P.O/ P.S.- DIPHU, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782460.

¶7

2: UTTAM DAS S/O LATE CHITTARANJAN DAS

¶8

RESIDENT OF PHE COLONY DIPHU

¶9

P.O./ P.S.- DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG

¶10

ASSAM

¶11

PIN- 782460.

¶12

3: HORI PRASAD DEHINGIA S/O- LATE TELIA DEHINGIA

¶13

RESIDENT OF PHE COLONY DIPHU

¶14

P.O./ P.S.- DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG

¶15

ASSAM PIN- 782460.

¶16

4: BHABESH TALUKDAR S/O LATE HEM CHANDRA TALUKDAR

¶17

RESIDENT OF PHE COLONY

¶18

Page No.# 2/7

¶19

DIPHU

¶20

P.O./ P.S.- DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG

¶21

ASSAM PIN- 782460

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶24

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (T)

¶25

KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU PIN- 782460. 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU- 782462. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) DIPHU RURAL W/S DIVISION DIPHU PIN- 782460

¶26

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR. H R DAS,MS K PHUKAN,MR. D THAOSEN,MR H K SARMA

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, K A A C,SC, FINANCE

¶29

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶30

ORDER

¶31

11.06.2026

¶32

Heard Mr. BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Lotha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE, Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Mr. J Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC.

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the authorities of the Public Health Engineering Department, Diphu Rural Water Supply Division, in not recognizing the regularisation of their services.

¶34

The petitioners, herein, were appointed as Muster Roll Workers and Work Charged Khalasi under the establishment of the Public Health Engineering Department, Diphu Rural Water Supply Division on different dates, more particularly, prior to 01.04.1993. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their

¶35

services were not regularized although they had rendered for more than 30 (thirty) years of services.

¶36

The petitioners having continued in their services in the Public Health

¶37

Page No.# 4/7

¶38

Engineering Department, had approached this Court by filling the present writ petition, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reckon the regularisation of their services in the post of Grade-III and Grade-IV during the tenure of their services with the Department.

¶39

Mr. BD Das, learned Senior 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, 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.

¶40

Having made the said submissions, Mr. BD Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has referred to a recent decision of the Apex 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.

¶41

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 Apex Court in case of

¶42

Page No.# 5/7

¶43

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), Mr. D. Gogoi, 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. It is submitted 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 Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).

¶44

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

¶45

With regard to the prayer made by the petitioners for regularisation of their services in terms of the decision of the Apex 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

¶46

Apex 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

¶48

Page No.# 6/7

¶49

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2013 is affirmed.

¶50

Consequently, we pass the following directions:

¶51

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.

¶52

II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the eligible appellants and, where necessary, create supernumerary posts to facilitate their regularization.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and other benefits shall be released to their legal heirs in accordance with law.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.”

¶58

Thereafter, the Apex Court in para 96 proceeded to hold that the work

¶59

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

¶60

the judgment made in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605. The Apex Court further provided a liberty to the members

¶61

Page No.# 7/7

¶62

of the appellant Association to agitate their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits before the State Government.

¶63

In view of the directions passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), more particularly, in Paragraph- 76 thereof, read with the observations made in Paragraphs- 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 Paragraph- 76 of the decision in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) read with the observations made in Paragraphs - 96 and 97, thereof. On such consideration being made, a speaking order releasing to the petitioners their benefits found due and payable to the petitioners shall be released within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶64

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

¶65

Comparing Assistant

Harmohan Chakravarty and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmohan Chakravarty and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Bakul Nath Vs the Union of India and Othrs

Ashish Kapinjal Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 3 Ors.

Jc- 362324 M Naib Subedar/ Clerk MD Ibomcha Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Prosen Haflongbar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Flexituff-Dird Jv Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bhairab Ch Saud Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.