Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010149932023 2025:GAU-AS:8278 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4407/2023 JANMAJIT DAS AND 23 ORS S/O JAGADISH RANJAN DAS, R/O HOUSE NO. 666, LAXMI BAZAR, HA PWD QUARTER, WARD NO. 8, TOWN- KARIMGANJ, P.O.-KARIMGANJ, P.S.- KARIMGANJ, BONOMALI, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710 2: SUJAN CHAKRABORTY S/O PARIKHIT CHAKRABORTY VILL- BRAHMANSHASAN P.O.-BRAHMANSHASAN DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788722 3: SAMIK DEB ROY S/O SUDHIR DEB ROY R/O SUDHIR COMPLEX LONGLAI ROAD P.O.-SETTLEMENT ROAD AYALABARI T.E. P.O.-KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGNAJ ASSAM PIN-788712 4: PRITWISH DAS S/O LT. PRIYADA RANJAN DAS R/O NEAR NORTH KXJ BLOCK VILL-GARDARASHI P.O.-SADARASHI DIST- ASSAM PIN-788709 5: SUSHANTA DAS Page No.# 2/10 S/O SAMARAJIT DAS VILL- SADARASHI P.O.-SADARASHI SADARASHI PT I DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788709 6: IKBAL AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O ABDUL MATIN CHOUDHURY VILL- DIMPUR P.O.-BISHNUNAGAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788781 7: SHAMIM AHMED S/O SIRAJ UDDIN VILL- DEOPUR P.O.-TILLA BAZAR KALACHERRA DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788709 8: ASHIQUE IQBAL CHOUDHURY S/O EBADUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY VILL- DASGRAM P.O.-DASGRAM DIST - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788722 9: SANJIB BHATTACHARJEE S/O MANABENDRA BHATTACHARJEE VILL-DASGRAM P.O. - DASGRAM DIST - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788722 10: SUJON AHMED S/O ABDUL MALIK VILL- SARONGDEOPUR P.O.-MANIKGANJ BAR PURAHURIA PT I DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM Page No.# 3/10 PIN-788712 11: MAHANTA CHAKRABORTY S/O MONORANJAN CHAKRABORTY VILL-MAIZGRAM P.O.-MAIZGRAM DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788712 12: INDRAJIT DAS S/O NAGENDRA CHANDRA DAS R/O NABIN GRAM P.S.- RAMKRISHNAGAR P.O.-NIZNABIN DIST - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788156 13: SARIFUL AMIN S/O ABDUL MATIN VILL- SINGUA FUL TALI P.O.-BRAJENDRAPUR SINGUA PT. II DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788156 14: SANJOY KUMAR DAS S/O BIRESH CHANDRA DAS VILL-CHAMELA P.O.-CHAMELA BAZAR DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788166 15: RUPAK SHARMA S/O HARENDRA SHARMA R/O NEAR KALACHUP L.P. SCHOOL P.O.-RAMKRISHNA NAGAR DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788166 16: SANTANU CHOUDHURY S/O SAMARENDRA CHOUDHURY VILL-BALICHERRA P.O.-RAMKRISHNA NAGAR Page No.# 4/10 DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788166 17: RATISH CHANDRA ROY S/ OJUGENDRA CHANDRA ROY VILL-KURIKALA P.O.-BARUALA DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788734 18: ABHIJIT DEY S/O HIRENDRA DEY VILL- BANAMALI PT I P.O.-KARIMGANJ DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788710 19: NITAI DAS S/O RAI CHARAN DAS VILL- PATIRAKANDI P.O.-MAHAKAL P.S.-BADARPUR DIST-KARIMGNAJ ASSAM PIN-788701 20: NURUL ISLAM S/O ABDUR RAHIM VILL-HASANPUR P.O.-HASANPUR DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788806 21: ALIM UDDIN S/O ABDUL KHALIQUE VILL- KAMALAPARA HOUSE NO-106 UMARPUR PT II P.O.-KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788806 22: NANDAN KUMAR DAS Page No.# 5/10 S/O PRABITRA MOHAN DAS VILL- GHORAMARA P.O.-CHAITANYA NAGAR GHORAMARA PT I DIST-KARIMGANJ PIN-788713 23: SRIKANTA DAS S/O KARUNAMAY DAS VILL- NAYAPATAN P.O.-BHANGA BAZAR P.S.-BADARPUR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788701 24: SUDIPTA PURKAYASTHA S/O RANJIT PURKAYASTHA VILL- MOINA P.S.-PATHARKANDI P.O.-KANAI BAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78872 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DRDA) CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE SELECTION BOARD SETTLEMENT ROAD KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MISS. J GOGOI,MR H MAZUMDER,MR P J DUTTA Page No.# 6/10 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, FINANCE Linked Case : WP(C)/4268/2023 RATAN LAL NATH AND 7 ORS. S/O- RANENDRA LAL NATH VILL- NAYAPATAN P.O- BHANGA BAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788701 2: FARUQUE HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O- LATE TAYOBUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER R/O- NEAR NATIONAL COOPERATIVE RICE MILL P.O- HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 3: SHAKIL AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O-ABDUL MUKIT BARBHUIYA R/O- BILPAR DUMKHAR P.O- RANGAUTI P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 4: ABDUL KALAM BARBHUIYA S/O-MOYUB ALI BARBHUIYA R/O- ALGAPUR PART II P.O AND P.S-ALGAPUR DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788150 5: ARIF MOHAMMAD S/O- SIRAJUDDIN AHMED R/O- MISSION ROAD/ ROSHAN COTTAGE P.O- BADARPUR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788806 6: HIROK DAS S/O- RATNAMOY DAS Page No.# 7/10 R/O- NEAR SADARSHI GP OFFICRE SADARSHI PART II P.O- SADARSHI DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788709 7: JANMEJAY CHAKRABORTY S/O-JYOTIRMAY CHAKRABORTY R/O-VILLAGE- LATU NEAR LATU HIGH SCHOOL P.O- LATU DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788781 8: SUJOY DAS S/O- SUNIL KUMAR DAS VILL- SADARSHI PART I P.O- SADARSHI DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788709 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE SELECTION BOARD SETTLEMENT ROAD KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM Page No.# 8/10 ------------ Advocate for : MR B P BORAH Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-06-2025 Heard Mr. P. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Ghosh, learned counsel representing the respondents in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel representing the respondent Finance Department, Assam. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners herein praying for the following reliefs: “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to grant the minimum scale of pay to the petitioners as per the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA No. 45/2014 and also direct the respondent authorities to take an expeditious decision on continuation of services of the petitioners until attainment of 60 years of age and/or pass any such further or other order/s as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to give appropriate relief to the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners herein were engaged as Accredited Engineer, on contractual basis, in the year 2010 for implementation of various schemes in the district of Karimganj, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA Act). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the engagement of the petitioners as contractual employees not being against any sanctioned post, they would be entitled to the benefits flowing from paragraph 22 of the judgment and order Page No.# 9/10 dated 08.06.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 45/2014 (Upen Das and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors.). Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners would be entitled to draw their remuneration in the minimum scale of pay so attached to the similar posts in regular establishments. 5. Such prayer is objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who submits that the petitioners not having completed ten years of service as on the date of passing of the judgment and order by the Division Bench in Upen Das (supra), they would not be entitled to the benefits flowing from paragraph 22 of the said judgment and order. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially engaged on contractual basis as Accredited Engineer under the MGNREGA scheme in the district of Karimganj, Assam, and their such engagements were made in the year 2010. The petitioners have prayed for a direction for extending the benefits flowing from paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Upen Das (supra). Accordingly, paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Upen Das (supra) is extracted herein-below: “22. It is, however, heartening to learn that the State Government has agreed not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The State Government has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken a s welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question. We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) with effect from 01.08.2017.” Page No.# 10/10 8. A perusal of the directions of the Division Bench contained in paragraph 22 of Upen Das (supra) would go to show that the same was made applicable to the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than ten years (in non-sanctioned post). The expression “working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post)” has to be understood to mean rendering of such service for a period of 10 (ten) years prior to the date of the judgment. Since the petitioners admittedly had not completed ten years of their engagement on the date of passing of the judgment by the Division Bench, they cannot be held to be entitled to the benefits flowing from paragraph 22 of the decision of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra). The said decision being of a Division Bench, this Court is not empowered to pass an order contrary to the directions contained in the said decision. The claim of the petitioners, as made in the present writ petition, being confined to the extension to them of the benefits flowing from the above-referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners having been held to be not eligible for being extended the said benefit, the said claim of the petitioners would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there would be not order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant