Ranjit Boro and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

2. Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, at the outset has submitted that the prayer made in the present writ petition for regularization of the services of the petitioners is not pressed, inasmuch as, the petitioners are all post 01.04.1993 appointees. However, Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, prays that the prayer

¶34

of the petitioners for being authorized minimum of the scale of pay of the comparable post in the regular cadre be considered by this Court.

¶35

3. Ms. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, submits that the petitioners were not appointed by an authority under the Health & Family Welfare Department. The appointment of the petitioners were so effected by the Hospital Management Committee of the concerned hospital, wherein the petitioners were working. It is submitted that appointments effected by

¶36

the Hospital Management Committee cannot be construed to be appointments made in the Health & Family Welfare Department and accordingly, the department would be in no way responsible for release of wages to the petitoners. Accordingly, she submits that the directions, if

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

any issued, by this Court for payment of minimum scale of pay to the petitioners ought to be passed only to the concerned Hospital Management Society and not to the State Respondents.

¶39

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

¶40

5. The alternative prayer of the petitioners for being authorized the minimum scale of pay of a comparable post in the regular cadre is being considered. The petitioners in the pleadings in the writ petition more particularly in the affidavit in reply filed, have projected that their initial appointment was so effected by the jurisdictional Hospital Management Committee. The petitioners have further projected that they have completed more than 10 (ten) years of service. The prayer of the petitioners is based on the directions passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das, vide order dated 08.06.2017, in W.A.No.45/2014. The said decision in the case of Upen Das, however has since been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors ., [ 2026 INSC 523] . Accordingly, the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das cannot be directed to be considered to be applied in respect of the petitioners, herein.

¶41

6. The petitioners having projected that they are still continuing to

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

render their services, this Court directs that it would be open for the petitioners to approach the respective Hospital Management Society and pray for grant of minimum of the scale of pay attached to a comparable post in the regular cadre. In the event of any such application being filed by the petitioners, the Hospital Management Society shall consider the same and dispose of the same by way of passing a speaking order. Such speaking order be passed within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioners, herein.

¶44

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

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Ranjit Boro and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Boro and 3 Ors. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Minu Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mrs Minu Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

The Principal Vs Shri Kumar Bikash Nath

Shubhashis Chakraborty Vs Ajay Kumar and 2 Ors.