Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010246742018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7696/2018 SANKAR DAS S/O- PARIMAL DAS, R/O- NIZ-BORIGOG, P.O. KANIHA, P.S. RANGIA, DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN- 781380 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE ESTT. (B) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE ESTT. (B) DEPTT. GHY-6 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE ESTT. (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 5:THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURY ASSAM KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) (TREASURY ESTT.) DEPTT. AMINGAON Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN- 32 7:THE S.D.O. (CIVIL) RANGIA ASSAM PIN- 781354 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER KAMRUP (R) AMINGAON PIN- 32 9:THE TREASURY OFFICER RANGIA SUB-TREASURY RANGIA ASSAM PIN- 78135 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MD. I H KHAN,MS. N NASRIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY (GA, ASSAM, R-1,6 & 7) , MR P NAYAK (SC, FINANCE, R-2,3,4,5,8,9) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 11.02.2025 Heard Ms. A.A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Shri M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P. Nayak learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 2. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers: “In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition call for the records, issue a notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued by directing the respondents to pay the Page No.# 3/5 arrear fixed salary of Rs.6,41,700/- (Rupees six lakhs forty one thousand & seven hundred) only along with interest of 9% per annum till the payment is made and also be directed to provide post facto approval of his service or cause or causes being shown upon hearing the parties on perusal of the records be pleased to make the rule absolute by providing complete and adequate relief to the petitioner and/or pass such order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. AND Pending disposal of the case, the respondents should be directed to pay current fixed salary of Rs.9,000/- per month as per the Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2018 and/or the respondents authority should be directed not to disturb the petitioner in his service till the post facto approval is granted in the interest of justice.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Grade-IV employee on casual basis, vide an order dated 06.02.2009 issued by the Treasury Officer, Rangia Sub-Treasury, Rangia. In connection with the service, he was paid an amount of Rs.15,800/- vide a cheque dated 18.04.2011. However, the salaries for the rest of the period amounting to Rs.6,41,700/- has not been paid. The petitioner has also claimed current salaries at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned counsel has submitted that there are recommendations made by the Treasury Officer for budget allocation as well as for payment of the dues which has not been paid any heed to. 4. On the other hand, Shri Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has submitted that the very induction of the petitioner in service is not in accordance with law. He has submitted that the Treasury Officer is not Page No.# 4/5 empowered to make any appointments and if any such appointment was made, it was in his personal capacity, for which the State Exchequer cannot be burdened. He submits that the basis of the claim being founded on illegality, namely, appointment by a person without jurisdiction or authority, the claim is not maintainable. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 5 on 27.09.2023 and has contended that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 5. The rival contentions have been duly considered. 6. The claim of the petitioner is based on an order dated 06.02.2009 by which the petitioner was appointed as a casual worker on monthly wage basis against a sanctioned vacant post. The said order was issued by the Treasury Officer, Rangiya Sub- Treasury. Admittedly, the Treasury Officer did not have any power to make an appointment or engagement. It appears that the said Treasury Officer had thereafter made communications for budget allocation for payment of salaries. In the enclosure to the letter dated 26.11.2009, it clearly reflects that the petitioner was engaged as a Sweeper out of necessity. Though the aspect of necessity may be a relevant consideration, the same cannot surpass the requirement of following the due process of law to make the appointment. If the said due process is not followed and appointments are made in a manner not recognized by law, the same would lead to anarchy which is not at all desired. This Court has also not found any recognized procedure of law which was followed for making such appointment, namely advertisement and selection process. Page No.# 5/5 7. The aspect of payment of Rs.15,800/- to the petitioner would not have any impact in the present claim for arrears as well as for current salaries. The claim, if any, has to be made by the petitioner from the concerned Treasury Officer as it was on his pleasure, the engagement appears to have been made. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant