Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010178672019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6067/2019 RUPESWAR SAIKIA AND 55 ORS. S/O LATE REWAI SAIKIA, VILL-NEW SALIA GAON, P.O.-SATRIA (GOTANGA), P.S.-PULIBAR, PIN-785006 2: SUREN SARMA BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE TILESHWAR VILL-MALOW ALI JORHAT P.O.-DHARGORA P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 3: MD. SAMSUL HAQUE S/O LATE SALIMUDDIN VILL-BONGAON P.O.-BANAR GAON P.S.-BALSOR 4: LAKHIRAM BORAH S/O TUNARAM BORAH VILL-TOKOU GAON P.O.-KOROKATOLI P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 5: BIDYADHAR PEGU S/O LATE BORDONG PEGU VILL-NAMONI CHEREPAI GAON P.O.-JENGRAI MUKH (MAJULI) P.S.-MAJULI PIN-785110 6: JADAV CH. HAZARIKA S/O LATE BHOGESWAR HAZARIKA VILL-KAKOJAN BONGAON Page No.# 2/22 P.O.-KAKOJAN P.S.-LADOIGAR PIN-785683 7: ANANDA BARUAH S/O KAMESHWAR BARUAH VILL-SUTER GAON P.O.-TEKELA P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 8: PURNANDA GOGOI S/O CHITRAOHAR GOGOI VILL-DORIKA PAR HATI MURIA GAON P.O.-VADHURA P.S.-SIBASAGAR 9: BAKUL CH. BORAH S/O LATE KHUDRAM BORAH VILL-GOHAI TEKELA GAON P.O. AND P.S.-JORHAT PIN-785001 10: MRS BHANU BORAH W/O RAJEN KOLITA VILL-MELENG BORKHELI GAON P.O.-BORKHELIA P.S.-LADOIGAR PIN-785700 11: JOGEN BORAH S/O LATE TULASHI BORAH VILL-MELENG BORKHELIA GAON P.O.-BORKHELIA P.S.-LADOIGAR PIN-785700 12: SOMESHWAR BORAH S/O LATE BHUOSHAR VILL-KUHUMJOGAMIA P.O.-GORAKHIADOLE P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 13: PORESH BORAH S/O LATE SONARAM BORAH VILL-NIZ BALIGAON P.O.-GORAKHIADOLE Page No.# 3/22 P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 14: MANIK CH. BORAH S/O LATE DHARMESHWAR VILL-KUHUMJOGONIA GAON P.O.-GOROKHIADOLE P.S.-PULIBOR PIN-785006 15: ARUN DUTTA S/O. LT. BONGALI VILL. GOROKHIADOLE P.O. GOROKHIADOLE P.S. PULUBAR PIN-785006. 16: RAJKAMAL BARUAH S/O. LT. KULAKAMAL VILL. SALAI BANOHA P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT PIN-785001. 17: BHUPEN RAJKHOWA S/O. LT. DULAL VILL. 2 NO. BRAHMAN GAON P.O. CHENGELI GAON P.S. JORHAT PIN-785010. 18: TONGKESHWAR BORAH S/O. LT. SONARAM VILL. POCHIM KHUTIKOTIA KOLONGPAR PATH P.O. SANSWA P.S. SADAR (NAGAON) PIN-782001. 19: KARUNAKANTA BORAH S/O. LT. KULAI BORAH VILL. SHIYALMARI P.O. DAKERGHAT P.S. SADAR (NAGAON) PIN-782001. 20: SOFIQUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY S/O. LT. NAZI ALI CHOUDHURY VILL. DORONGIAL P.O. CHOKOLAGHAT Page No.# 4/22 P.S. JURIA PIN-782124. 21: MONI SAIKIA W/O. PRODEEP SAIKIA VILL. DORONGIAL P.O. CHOKOLAGHAT P.S. JURIA PIN-782124. 22: PURNIMA BORAH W/O. LT. SIBAPRASAD BORAH VILL. NH. 37 KHUTOKOTIA P.O. HOIBARGAON P.S. HOIBARGAON PIN-782002. 23: PADMA KANTA SARMAH S/O. LT. NADURAM SARMAH VILL. MORIKOLONG BORGHAT P.O. NAGAON P.S. NAGAON PIN-782001. 24: BHUJEN KR. MAHANTA S/O. LT. HORICHARAN VILL. LATHABARI W.NO.4 P.O. MORIGAON P.S. MORIGAON PIN-782105. 25: PRODEEP KR. PATHAK S/O. LT. NOBIN CH. PATHAK VILL. MADHYA MATUA KUSHI BARPETA W.NO.19 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 26: PRASSANLAL CHAUDHURY S/O. SIDHANATH CHAUDHURY VILL. MAJARHATI W.NO.2 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 27: KISHORI MOHEN DAS Page No.# 5/22 S/O. LT. DURLOV CH. DAS VILL. BUDARURTUP WARD NO.13 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 28: RAJANIKANTA DAS S/O. LT. KHOGENDRANATH DAS VILL. BRINDABONHATI WARD NO.9 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 29: UPENDRANATH DAS S/O. LT. UTSHAL CH. DAS VILL. NO.1 DAKHINHATI WARD NO.11 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 30: DAMBORUDHAR DAS S/O. LT. HANGSHIRAM DAS VILL. 11 NA DOKHINATI WARD NO.4 P.O. BARPETA P.S. BARPETA PIN-781301. 31: HARIPADA KARMAKAR S/O. LT. SOTISH KARMAKAR VILL. HOWLI BARUA BAZER WARD NO.2 P.O. HOWLI P.S. HOWLI PIN-781316. 32: BIDYA DAS S/O. LT. NIRONJAN DAS VILL. HOWLI TOWN WARD NO.1 P.O. HOWLI P.S. HOWLI PIN-781316. 33: MUNUNDRANATH DAS S/O. LT. GORGESHWAR DAS VILL. MAJULIJE SOKEHOKA BAZER P.O. SOKEHOKA P.S. SORBHOG PIN-781317. Page No.# 6/22 34: NINI GOLPAL RAJKHOWA S/O. LT. GOJOT RAJKHOWA VILL. LOKHOUJAN TINALI P.O. LOKHOUJAN P.S. BOKAKHAT PIN-785612. 35: PURNAKANTA GOGOI S/O. LT. DIMBESWAR GOGOI VILL. MOHMAIKI GAON P.O. BOKAKHAT P.S. BOKAKHAT PIN-785612. 36: DEBI PRASAD SARMAH S/O. LT. MEGNATH SARMAH VILL. THANAMUKH PURONA CHUKBAZAR WARD NO.3 P.O. SIBSAGAR P.S. SIBSAGAR PIN-785640. 37: PROBITRA DUTTA S/O. LT. BHARAT CH. DUTTA VILL. SAWPIA PAM WARD NO.6 SONARI P.O. SONARI P.S. SONARI PIN-785690. 38: ARABINDA BARUAH S/O. LT. KATIRAM BARUAH VILL. SONARI TOWN WARD NO.10 P.O. SONARI P.S. SONARI PIN-785690. 39: BIREN BORGOHAIN S/O. LT. BHOGI BORGOHAIN VILL. SONARI TOWN WARD NO.11 P.O. SONARI P.S. SONARI PIN-785690. 40: HASNA ARA BEGAUM D/O. LT. MUJIBUR RAHMAN VILL. TIKRAJABARI SONARI TOWN WARD NO.15 P.O. SONARI P.S. SONARI Page No.# 7/22 PIN-785690. 41: MOHENDRA DAS S/O. LT. SONIRAM DAS VILL. TOPOLA BOSTI )LACHIT NAGER) P.O. DIGBOI P.S. DIGBOI PIN-786171. 42: MUNIM BARUAH S/O. LT. GUNOOHAR BARUAH VILL. AMGURI NAGER WARD NO.1 P.O. AMGURI P.S. AMGURI PIN-785683. 43: DIPALI BORAH W/O. LT. DURGESHWAR BORAH VILL. RAIDONGIA GAON P.O. AMGURI P.S. AMGURI PIN-785683. 44: MONJU BORAH W/O. LT. GOKUL BORAH VILL. BHUJAN GAON P.O. AMGURI P.S. AMGURI PIN-785683. 45: GOJEN SAIKIA S/O. LT. MAOHURAM VILL. DERGAON TOWN WARD NO.8 P.O. DERGAON P.S. DERGAON PIN-785703. 46: ABUL HUSSAIN S/O. LT. APIRAUDDIN VILL. NAHORI GAON (MAZGAON) P.O. NAHORI P.S. DERGAON PIN-785614. 47: BADAN CH. BORAH Page No.# 8/22 S/O. MOHENDRANATH BORAH VILL. KOSH GAON P.O. FURKATING P.S. FURKATING PIN-785610. 48: ISFAQUL HAQUE S/O. LT. ANAWAR HUSSAIN VILL. CLUB MISSION ROAD WARD NO.4 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT PIN-785621. 49: BIMAL BORAH S/O. SOVARAM BORAH VILL. BIPIN PHUKAN NAGER WARD NO.3 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT PIN-785621. 50: BRAJEN BORTHAKUR S/O. LT. RIPUNJOY BORTHAKUR VILL. JONAKI NAGER P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT PIN-785621. 51: HIRONNYA SARMAH S/O. LT. DULAL CH. SARMAH VILL. NEW AMULAPOTI MILON NAGER WARD NO.10 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT PIN-785621. 52: SUREN GOGOI S/O. LT. CHANDRASWAR GOGOI VILL. LAKHIMPUR NAGAR WARD NO.4 P.O. NORTH LAKHIMPUR P.S. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001. 53: BHUBON DUTTA S/O. TUARAM DUTTA (KALITA) VILL. BAHADURCHUEK GAON P.O. BAHADURCHUEK GAON P.S. BAHADURCHUEK GAON Page No.# 9/22 PIN-787031. 54: LOHIT DEKA S/O. LT. MIRAM DEKA VILL. HAZARAPAR WARD NO.17 P.O. TEZPUR P.S. TEZPUR PIN-784001. 55: KIRTI BHAGOWATI S/O. LT. BUPESWAR BHAGOWATI VILL. PHUTIKHATI P.O. DEKA GAON P.S. CHALONIBARI PIN-784501. 56: CHAMPA BHUYAN S/O. LT. UPEN BHUYAN VILL. KOMARSUBURI P.O. TEZPUR P.S. TEZPUR PIN-784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 20 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR Page No.# 10/22 GUWAHATI-781006 6:THE DIRECTOR FINANCE (ECONOMIC AFFAIRS) DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 7:THE JORHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN A.T. ROAD MALOW ALI JORHAT ASSAM-785001 8:THE NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CHRISTIANPATTY NAGAON ASSAM-782001 9:THE MORIGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN RAJAGAON ASSAM-782105 10:THE BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BARPETA ROAD ASSAM-781315 11:THE HOWLY TOWN COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN HOWLY ASSAM-781316 12:THE BARPETA ROAD MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BARPETA ROAD ASSAM-781315 13:THE BOKAKHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BOKAKHAT ASSAM-785612 14:THE SIVASAGAR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN Page No.# 11/22 SIVASAGAR ASSAM-785640 15:THE SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN SONARI ASSAM-785690 16:THE DIGBOI TOWN COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN DIGBOI ASSAM-786171 17:THE AMGURI MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY 61 AMGURI ASSAM-785683 18:THE DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN DERGAON ASSAM-785703 19:THE GOLAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BHOGA GAON ASSAM-785621 20:THE LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-787001 21:THE TEZPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN MAHABHAIRAB TEZPUR ASSAM-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H RAHMAN, MR I HASIEB Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR P NAYAK, SC,UDD,MR R DHAR,MR. N M DUTTA,MR. R BARUAH,MR. S C KHOUND,SC, PNRD,SC, FINANCE Page No.# 12/22 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 07.02.2026 Heard Mr. H Rahman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ahmed of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State respondents, and Mr. S. Dutta learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2] The petitioners were initially appointed by the various Municipal Boards within the State of Assam, like in the districts of Jorhat, Morigaon, Tinsukia, Sivasagar, Nagaon, North Lokimpur, Barpeta, Tezpur, Golaghat, etc. Their initial appointments were made by the respective Municipal Boards and their salaries were paid from the funds of the Boards and as such, their salaries were not fixed like the other Government Employees. According to the petitioners, their service conditions were governed by the same rules and regulations of the State Government and as such, the petitioners were superannuated from their services on attaining the age of 60 years. 3] The petitioners claim that since their conditions of service are governed by the rules and regulations of the State Government, accordingly, on attaining the age of superannuation, they are also entitled to be paid their pension. It is the claim of the petitioners that since their salaries were paid from the funds of the Page No.# 13/22 Municipal Boards, due to paucity of funds, the salaries of the petitioners could not be paid for the years 2008-2012 and subsequently, the entire amount towards salaries was finally granted by the State of Assam for payment of salaries from 2008-2012. The petitioners submit that having ventilated their grievances before the authorities, the Government finally placed a Cabinet Meeting before the State Cabinet on 4th of September, 2013. The State Cabinet considered and approved the recommendations of the Committee of the Group of Ministers on the Final Report and Supplementary Report of the 4th Assam State Finance Commission, particularly with regard to the staffing pattern of local bodies such as Municipal Boards and the provincialisation of the services of the employees. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the highest authority in the State, namely, the Cabinet, has taken a policy decision for grant of status of provincialisation to the employees of the Municipal Board and for release of pensionary benefits. However, for reasons best known to the Government, this decision could not be came to be implemented and no specific orders were passed by the Administrative Department notifying the decision of the Government and implementation of the same. The Petitioners continued to represent before the authorities concerned. However, since their grievances were not redressed, they have approached this Court by filing the Page No.# 14/22 present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the Cabinet decision dated 4th of September, 2013 and to provincialise the services of the petitioners for the benefit of their pension and to take necessary steps for grant of pensionary benefits to all the retired employees of the Municipal Boards and the Town Committees within the State of Assam and also pass appropriate orders as deem proper. 4] Mr. H Rahman, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has pressed into service the following judgments in support of his contentions: (i) UNA Nagar Palika vs. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana and Another eported in (2019) 12 SCC 340 (ii) State of Bihar and Another vs. Sunny Prakash and Others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 559 (iii) Dr. Prabhat Chandra Kalita vs. The State of Assam and 3 Others passed in WP(C) No.3782/2024 on 19.03.2025 (iv) District Project Co-ordinator vs. Golamnabi Amzadhussain reported in 1998 (1) GLT 544 Referring to these above judgments, Mr. H Rahman, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that once a policy decision is taken, it is mandatorily required to be implemented unless the same is revisited and the policy is recalled. He submits that in spite of several years and successive amendments in place, the policy was never recalled. Therefore, as on date, there is a Cabinet Policy decision that the services of the employees of the Assam Municipal Boards are to be provincialised and they are to be granted pensionary benefits Page No.# 15/22 and notwithstanding that the Administrative Department has failed to carry out the Policy Decision taken by the State. It is submitted that the Government till today has also not revisited the policy and has also not taken any steps to ensure that the policy is implemented. Referring to these judgments, the learned Senior Counsel suffix that the State being a welfare State, such decisions taken by the State in the interest of its citizenry are required to be implemented in right earnest and the appropriate departments were required to be suitably directed by the State Government to carry out the State Policy by issuance of appropriate notifications and/or gazette. 5] Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents, has strongly objected to the contention raised. He submits that at the relevant point in time, it was the State that felt that some decisions were required to be taken and had accordingly adopted a Policy Decision. This Policy Decision, for reasons best known to the Government, however, would not be implemented and at this stage, the implementation of the same is not called for, inasmuch as, by subsequent statute, namely, the Assam Municipal Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2025, which was enacted and it was gazetted notified on 16th of June 2025. Referring to the same statute, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the statute is very Page No.# 16/22 clear in respect of the applicability of the provisions of the statute on the employees inasmuch as, as per Section 4(iii) of the Act, it is clearly prescribed that the employees who completed 60 years of age, as on date of coming into force of this Act, shall be deemed to be retired with effect from that date and they shall have no claim whatsoever from the State Government as regards their pay, allowances, benefits for services already rendered by them before the date of provincialisation. He therefore submits that the claims made by the petitioners do not merit consideration, inasmuch as, a statute brought in by the legislature of the State is a reflection of the policy decision taken by the State and which culminates into a law enacted by the State legislature. This law enacted by the State legislature will override any other policy decision taken which was not implemented as per the procedure prescribed. Therefore, the claim of benefits by the petitioners under the Cabinet decision does not merit consideration and therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 6] In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only relief the petitioners are claiming are inclusion of their claims for payment of pensionary benefits and this could well have been included in the subsequent Act brought out, namely, the Assam Municipal Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2025. Since there is already an earlier decision taken by the State in the form of a Cabinet Meeting dated 04.09.2013, it is submitted that the Government's Page No.# 17/22 decision cannot have conflicting conclusion. Once a Policy Decision is taken, then that decision must be reflected in subsequent actions of the Government and such subsequent action must be in tune with the earlier policy decision adopted by the Government. However, the new statute, namely, the Act of 2025 is completely opposite to the Cabinet Meeting which was earlier adopted by the State. Accordingly, he therefore submits that in terms of the Policy Decision adopted in the Cabinet by its Meeting dated 04.09.2013, the claims of the petitioners should be accordingly considered by making suitable modifications in the subsequent Act of 2025. He therefore submits that the grievances raised by the petitioners in this petition be redressed, the petition be allowed and suitable directions be issued to the respondents. 7] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on records have been carefully perused. 8] It is seen that at the given point in time the Government upon considering the claims raised by the petitioners had taken a Policy Decision in the form of Cabinet Meeting dated 04.09.2013 and there is equally no dispute that this Policy Decision does not come into implemented and there is no order passed by any Administrative Department bringing out notification or office memorandums implementaing the decision taken by the Cabinet. In the Page No.# 18/22 meantime the Act of 2025 came to be enacted by the State where there is a clear provision under Section 4 that employees who has attained the age of 60 year on the date of coming into force of the Act shall be deemed retired and will have not claim on the act. The said Section 4 of the Act, 2025 is extracted below: “4. Subject to the fulfillment of all other provisions of this Act the services of the employees of Municipal Board, eligible under section 3 shall be deemed to have been provincialised on and from the appointed day and they shall become employees of the State Government from the said date of appointed day of the Act on the following terms and conditions:- (i) all rules including service rule and rules of conduct and discipline and appeal which are applicable to Government servants of corresponding ranks, shall be applicable to all Employees of the Municipal Board. (ii) all employees whose services have been provincialised under this Act shall get full scale of pay as per Schedule with such emoluments as salary and allowances applicable to the Government employees of the corresponding rank with effect from the date of provincialisation of their services, as if they are fresh appointees and they cannot claim any benefit whatsoever in respect of past services rendered by them before provincialisation and in respect of pension, they shall be governed by the new pension scheme applicable to State Government employees of the corresponding rank. There shall be a provision of annual increment as per norms of the State Government. (iii) the employees, who have completed sixty-years of age as on date of coming into force of this Act shall be deemed to have retired with effect from that date and they shall have no claim whatsoever from the State Government as regards their pay, allowances and benefits for services already rendered by them before the date of provincialisation. Page No.# 19/22 (iv) scope of work and other conditions of service of the employees shall be as may be prescribed. (v) the employees provincialised under this Act shall hold personal posts to be created for provincialisation of their services. These posts shall be created in the Directorate of Municipal Administration and shall stand abolished on cessation of services of the concerned employees, due to retirement, death, resignation or any other reason whatsoever. (vi) the employees shall have the option to choose whether they shall continue with their existing employment system or they intend to come under the provincialisation of the services provided under the Act.” 9] Having noticed the arguments addressed before the Court and the claim of the parties, the question before the Court is whether the Cabinet Decision in itself can be considered to be reflection of Policy Decision which must be/and or needs to be implemented and any subsequent division or an action undertaken by the State cannot, and ought not to, contradict or override an earlier decision taken by the State through a Cabinet Memorandum. In this context it is necessary to refer to a celebrated judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395. The Apex Court in the said judgment was also confronted with this question as the effect of the Cabinet Decision undertaken by the State. The Apex Court held that in the scheme of the Government of India, Ministers are not more than advisor of the head of the State. The advisor of the State, namely, the Ministers who are elected representing of the citizens are to deliberate on various public issues Page No.# 20/22 and thereafter, take a decision in the form of the Cabinet Memorandum. A Cabinet Memorandum is not, by itself, a decision taken by the State. It is merely a proposal or advice submitted by representatives of the elected Government to the Head of the State for consideration and approval. Until such approval is granted and the decision is formally expressed and communicated in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it does not attain the status of a binding decision of the State. The advice of the Council of Ministers, even when expressed in the form of Cabinet Memorandum will still be an opinion expressed which will become a decision of the State upon acceptance by the Governor of the State. Subsequent judgment of the Apex Court relied thereupon also is relevant for in reference in JP Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2003) 5 SCC 134. The Apex Court has consistently held that, in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, all executive actions of the State Government must be expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated; failing which, such action does not attain legal validity. Unless the above formality is observed, a Cabinet Decision cannot be regarded as an action of the State. The Apex Court reiterated that the council of Minister are the advisors and the Head of the State, namely, the Governor is to act as elbit with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, till such an advice is accepted by the Head of the State, namely, the Governor, the advisories of the Page No.# 21/22 Council of Ministers in the form of Cabinet Decision does not get crystalised into a decision and/or an action of the State. The reference of a judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in Dr. Prabhat Chandra Kalita (supra) and similar issue was dispensed by the Coordinate Bench relying upon the said judgments. The judgments referred to by the petitioner in this context pertain to conflict of decisions which were taken by the State. Certain decisions earlier were sought to be altered by making a complete volte face which the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held was not permissible. Here the decision of the State was reflected by the appropriate notification and office memorandum. In the facts of the present case, no such Office memorandum or notification was issued pursuant to the Cabinet decision taken by the State. Such decision could not have been issued in view of the constitutional frame work where these advisories in the form of Cabinet Memorandum have been put up for approval before the Head of the State namely, the Governor of the State. It is only upon due acceptance by the Government of the State, the views and opinion of cabinet are considered to be accepted and given a stamp of approval. Subsequent thereto consequential notification/office memorandum etc would have been issued pursuant to the Cabinet Decision taken by the State. So, therefore, it cannot be said that the Cabinet Decision taken by the State will reflect a policy decision taken by the State in the constitution of framework and Page No.# 22/22 which decision mandatorily is required to be implemented, till such time the same is repealed or revoked or recalled. In view of the above discussions, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the submissions urged. 10] Writ petition therefore being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any of the Clauses of the Act of 2025, needless to say, it is open for them to challenge the constitutional vires of this said Act, 2025 before the appropriate forum. JUDGE Comparing Assistant