Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010203182024 2025:GAU-AS:9237 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5053/2024 HAYA NAMPUI S/O- LATE P.C ROYA NAMPUI, VILL- NEW SANGBAR, P.O AND P.S- UMRANGSO, DIST- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788931 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING , GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING UMRANGSO DIVISION UMRANGSO ASSAM 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL MAIDAMGAON Page No.# 2/8 BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 ASSAM. 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 ASSAM. 7:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HALFLONG DIST -DIMA HASAO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S P DAS, MS. M PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, DIMA HASAO,GA, ASSAM,SC, AG,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 Heard Ms. S. P. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 & 2 and Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, DHAC, representing the respondent no. 3 & 7; Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam as well as Ms. U. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, representing the State respondent no. 6. Page No.# 3/8 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for the following reliefs: - “a. A writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writs, order or directions of like nature shall not be issued directing the respondents to forthwith compute and release all the Post Retirement Service Benefits and pension of the petitioner with immediate effect. b. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay interest on the principal amount of Post Retirement Service Benefits and pension which include GPF, Leave Salary, GIS etc. as well as only principal amount of accumulated pension w.e.f. 29.02.2016. c. Any other appropriate Writ order or direction of like nature for giving complete Justice to the petitioner against apparent illegal and unconstitutional acts of the respondents and called for the Records and on perusal thereof and upon hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such further or other order/orders as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper.” 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed herein below: - The petitioner herein was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PHE, Umrangso Division, Umrangso. The services of the petitioner was thereafter, upgraded as Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment vide issuance of an order dated 06.05.1999. The up-gradation of the services of the petitioner to that of Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment was in continuation of the services rendered by him in the Muster Roll capacity. The authorities in the PHED, vide a communication dated 07.10.2005, proceeded to convey the sanction for creation of 567 nos. of posts for regularizing equal number of Work-charged workers, who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and working in their respective establishment without any break. The name of the petitioner herein, figured in the said list annexed to the said communication Page No.# 4/8 dated 07.10.2005. The services of the petitioner were accordingly regularized and brought to the regular cadre. However, subsequently, vide an order dated 10.02.2006, the regularization as effected in the case of the petitioner herein, and other similarly situated persons came to be cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, retired from his service w.e.f. 29.02.2016, on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner, approached the respondent authorities for releasing to him his pension and pensionary benefits; however, the same not being processed, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Ms. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in continuous service with the respondent authorities w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f. 08.11.1990. She has further submitted that the up-gradation of the services of the petitioner to the post of Section Assistant in the Work- charged establishment was in continuation of his earlier engagement as a Muster Roll worker and there was no break in service of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner being in service, prior to 01.04.1993, he was entitled to have his services regularized, accordingly, the regularization of the services of the petitioner was regularized vide the order dated 07.10.2005. However, on a wrong interpretation made with regard to the service particulars of the petitioner, and by construing him to have been engaged w.e.f. 07.05.1999, the respondent authorities vide the order dated 10.02.2006, proceeded to cancel the regularization of the services of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide an order dated 07.09.2017, the services of the petitioner was again regularized w.e.f. 28.02.2016 i.e. a date prior to his date of retirement i.e. 29.02.2016. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner having been regularized, he would be entitled to be authorized his due pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the services rendered by him as a Muster Roll worker as well as a Work-charged employee. 6. With regard to the cancellation of the regularization of the services of the petitioner effected vide the order dated 10.02.2006, Ms. Das, learned counsel for the Page No.# 5/8 petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bijon Hapila Vs State of Assam and Ors., (Order dated 19.07.2023 in WP(C) No. 1231/2022) and submits that the petitioner being similarly situated like the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1231/2022, he would also be entitled to similar benefits. 7. Per contra, the learned counsels representing the respondents have submitted that the regularization of services effected in respect of the petitioner herein, having been so interfered with vide the order dated 10.02.2006, he would not be entitled to be construed as a regularized employee. 8. With regard to the regularization of the services of the petitioner vide the order dated 07.09.2017, it is submitted that the same having been effected by the Superintending Engineer, PHED, the same would be null and void, inasmuch as, the said authority is not empowered to issue orders on regularization of the services of the Muster Roll/Work-charged employees. It is submitted that the petitioner was brought to the Work-charged establishment only w.e.f. 07.05.1999 and the same being a development post 01.04.1993; the case of the petitioner would not be covered by the policy decision adopted in the Government for regularization of the services of the Muster Roll/Work- charged employees working prior to 01.04.1993. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 10. The name of the petitioner, admittedly, figures in the list of employees enclosed to the communication dated 07.10.2005, who were found to be eligible for having their services regularized. However, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department had issued a notification dated 10.02.2006; cancelling the order of regularization of services of a number of Muster Roll/Work-charged workers including that of the writ petitioner, on the ground that their services were inadvertently regularized. Insofar as, the petitioner is concerned, the notification dated 10.02.2006 reveals that the cancellation of his services was so effected on the ground that he was Page No.# 6/8 brought to the Work-charged establishment only w.e.f. 07.05.1999 against the post of Section Assistant, inasmuch as, the policy of regularization of the services of the Muster Roll/Work-charged employees adopted by the State was in respect of such employees, who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. 11. A perusal of the materials brought on record, would go to reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Work-charged employee w.e.f. 08.11.1990 in the establishment of the respondent no. 3 and during the continuance of his such engagement that he came to be upgraded to the post of Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment vide issuance of the order dated 07.05.1999. The initial engagement of the petitioner, vide the communication dated 07.10.2005, being in pursuance to the approval granted in this connection by the Government, the same could not have been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner was brought to the Work-charged establishment w.e.f. 07.05.1999 and thereby, ignoring the services rendered by the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f. 08.11.1990. 12. Under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Bijon Hapila (supra) had drawn the following conclusions: - “If that be so, there can be no element of doubt that the petitioner was appointed prior to 01/04/1993 and, therefore, he would come within the ambit of the order dated 07/10/2005. As such, the service of the writ petitioner were rightly regularized along with the 566 other Work Charge employees. Therefore, the subsequent order dated 10/02/2006 cancelling his order of regularization, on the face of the record, appears to be arbitrary and illegal.. The mere fact that on and from 06/05/1999, the petitioner was engaged as Work-charged (Plumber) could not have been a valid ground to cancel his order of regularization, more so, since the petitioner has been in continuous engagement under the department since 12/06/1984.” 13. This Court is in respectful agreement with the conclusions so drawn by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the above noted case. Applying the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bijon Hapila (supra) and also keeping in view the materials brought on record in the present proceeding, there is no element of doubt Page No.# 7/8 that the petitioner was appointed much prior to 01.04.1993 and therefore, he would come within the ambit of the order dated 07.10.2005. As such, it is to be held that the service of the petitioner was rightly regularized along with others. Accordingly, the subsequent order dated 10.02.2006; cancelling his order of regularization of the services, on the face of the record, appears to be arbitrary and illegal. The mere fact that only on and from 06.05.1999, the petitioner was engaged as Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment could not have been a valid ground to cancel his regularization, as the petitioner has been in continuous service with the respondents w.e.f. 08.11.1990. The fact that the petitioner was in service as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f. 08.11.1990 has also not been disputed by the respondents. 14. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.02.2006, qua the petitioner, cancelling his order of regularization, is on the face, arbitrary and illegal and the same is accordingly, set aside. 15. It is directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been regularized in his services, in terms of the communication dated 07.10.2005 and accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to extend to the petitioner all consequential benefits by treating him to be a regularized employee, in terms of the communication dated 07.10.2005. 16. The petitioner having retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation, the respondent authorities would now extend to the petitioner his due pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning his qualifying service for the same w.e.f. 08.11.1990, and by also reckoning that he was so regularized in his services, in terms of the order dated 07.10.1995. 17. The respondent authorities would now authorize to the petitioner his pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18. It is provided that, while releasing to the petitioner his pension and pensionary benefits, the respondents shall duly deduct therefrom, any terminal benefits authorized to Page No.# 8/8 the petitioner pursuant to his superannuation from services. 19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant