Prosen Haflongbar Vs the State of Assam and 4 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

WP(C)/3624/2023

¶6

PROSEN HAFLONGBAR S/O- SHRI RAMON HAFLONGBAR R/O- VILL.- GUNJUNG P.O. AND P.S. GUNJUNG DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788819.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 781006.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI NH WORKS GUWAHATI PIN- 781003.

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶12

Page No.# 2/7

¶13

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) KARIMGANJ NH DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710.

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) (R AND B) HAFLONG DIVISION HAFLONG PIN- 788819. -----------Advocate for : MR B D DAS Advocate for : SC PWD appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

11.06.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Lotha, learned

¶20

counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the authorities of the Public Works Department (PWD), Karimganj NH Division in not recognizing the regularisation of his services.

¶22

The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Work Charged Section Assistant

¶23

under the establishment of the respondent no.5 in the office of the Gujung Sub-

¶24

Page No.# 3/7

¶25

Division, Gunjung. Thereafter, he was transferred to PWD Umrangso NEC Division, Umrangso but was not allowed to join there. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the Office of the respondent no.4 and since then he has been discharging his duties from the respective office. It is submitted that the service of the petitioner was regularized by the respondents no.5 vide letter no.ADT.71/2005/133 dated 30.09.2005 but it is the grievance of the petitioner that his service has not been regularized till date although he had rendered for more than 30 (thirty) years of services.

¶26

The petitioner having continued in his services in the Public Works 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 during the tenure of his service with the Department.

¶27

Mr. BD Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, being engaged in the work charged establishment, prior to 01.04.1993, his case for regularisation of his service was covered by the policy decision adopted by the Government in the year 2005. However, his service was not considered for regularisation in the Public Works Department, when services of persons similarly situated like them, came to be so regularised.

¶28

Page No.# 4/7

¶29

Having made the said submissions, Mr. BD Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, 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 service of the petitioner, in terms of the said decisions.

¶30

With regard to the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD submits that the respondent authorities be directed to carry out a verification with regard to the service particulars of the petitioner and in the event, he is found to be covered by the said decision, a direction be issued to the Public Works Department authorities to implement the said decision in respect of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that a verification is mandated to be carried out with regard to the service particulars of the petitioner, even in terms of the directions passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).

¶31

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

¶32

Page No.# 5/7

¶33

With regard to the prayer made by the petitioner for regularisation of the

¶34

service of the petitioner 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.

¶35

The Apex Court in para-79 of the said judgment, had drawn the following conclusions and directions:

¶36

“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.

¶37

Consequently, we pass the following directions:

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

Page No.# 6/7

¶44

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.

¶45

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.”

¶46

Thereafter, the Apex 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 Apex 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.

¶47

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 petitioner, herein, to submit individual representation before the Secretary, Public Works Department, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the Secretary, Public Works Department shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the

¶48

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

¶49

Page No.# 7/7

¶50

97, thereof. On such consideration being made, a speaking order releasing to the petitioner his benefit found due and payable to the petitioner shall be released within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

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

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

Prosen Haflongbar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prosen Haflongbar 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

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.

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

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

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