Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040017342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/498/2025 Nabam Muj and 13 Ors Son of Nabam Dokio, a resident of middle Bormai Tarasso, PO and PS Balijan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Mrs Achal Giba @ Achal Hengam Age: Occupation : Wife of Mr Niapung Hengam a resident of Daporijo Town PO and SP Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Sunil Gumja Age: Occupation : Son of Tapa Gumja a resident of Lower E Sector IG Park near Indian Bank Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Mrs Kipa Yaku Age: Occupation : Wife of Gida Tajab a resident of Polo Colony Govt Higher Secondary School Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/9 5: Tilling Tadi Age: Occupation : Son of Tilling Takar Qtr No.20 Type - III Forest Colony Chandranagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Shelley @ Shelly Riang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Norbo Riang a resident of Abotani Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Mrs Yapu Gumja Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Tagiam Gumja Sebing Village Circle Chetam PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Mrs Yapit Pakba Age: Occupation : Daughter of Tarak Pakba a resident of Zoo Road near Biological Part at Lorputung Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Mrs Phassang Yallar Age: Occupation : Wife of Nangram Tamin a resident of Ganga Lake area Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Page No.# 3/9 Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Ms Godak Yai Age: Occupation : Daughter of Godak Tago 66 VIP Road Niti Vihar Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Mrs Kara Atu Age: Occupation : Daughter of Kara Chaki Nirjuli Village-II Back Side of Govt Secondary School Nirjuli PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare Dis4rict Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Miss Laxmi Khunjuju Age: Occupation : Daughter of Talong Khunjuju Kimi Village PO and PS Bhalukpong West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Teli Yame Age: Occupation : Daughter of Teli Tana village Chemi Ganga PO and PS Ganga Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Nabam Puja Age: Occupation : Daughter of Nabam Tajik Page No.# 4/9 Borum Village Yupia Road near Govt Middle School Borum PO Naharlagun PS Papu Hills Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Conservator of Forest (HQ) Age: 0 Occupation : Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Forces Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Conservator of Forests (Planning) Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : State Forest Research Institute Chimpu Itanagar Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt of Arunachal Pradesh . Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Tabing,Aso Dalbong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 5/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 – 5. Prayers:- 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for:- (i) setting aside and quashing the letter No. FOR/55D-5/2025Pt/12,656, dated 08.04.2025, issued by the Conservator of Forests (Planning) in the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and (ii) issuing direction to the respondent authorities to release their pending salaries. Submissions:- 3. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the state respondents have adopted a policy guideline, in which the person, who has attained the 60 years of age, has been relieved from the department and accordingly, 14 contingency staffs/labourers have been released from the department and thereafter, for the vacant posts, the state respondents have initiated a process for filling up the same by way of a walk-in-interview and in pursuance of the said interview, the petitioners have been appointed to the Page No.# 6/9 posts of contingency staffs/labourers and posted in various offices of the department. 3.1. Mr. Tapak further submits that, thereafter, the MLA of Doimukh Assembly Constituency had issued a DO letter to the department, wherein the engagement order of the petitioners as contingency labourers in the department has been instructed to be kept on hold. Accordingly, an order has been passed for holding of the petitioners’ appointment order. 3.2. Mr. Tapak also submits that, in the mean time, the state respondents have allowed the petitioners to work in their respective posts till disposal of the complaints and accordingly, monthly wages of the petitioners have been partially released for a period of 2 months 19 days. But, the wages for the rest of the period are yet to be paid and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition. 4. Per-contra, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 – 5, submits that the respondent authorities filed their affidavit-in-opposition. She submits that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 a stand has been taken that the Director, State Forest Research Institute, vide its letter No. FOR/55/D-5/2015/Pt/12,457, dated 04.04.2025, has requested to put on hold all the orders, issued by the office, including the engagement, till receipt of the instructions from the Government.She also submits that another stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 is that on receipt of several complaints alleging illegal engagement of 14 contingent workers by the Director, State Forest Research Institute, the Department of Vigilance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has sought response from the Forest Department. However, she submits that no such letter has been enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition. Page No.# 7/9 4.1. Drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph No. 11 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Ms. Ete submits that engagement orders of contingency staffs were not kept on hold on the basis of the DO letter issued by the MLA of Doimukh Assembly Constituency and that the same was kept on hold on the basis of the letter dated 08.04.2025, for want of clarification from the Government regarding the process for disengagement of workers more than 60 years old. 4.2. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, Ms. Ete submits that the Director has taken a stand that he is not aware of the DO letter issued by the MLA of Doimukh Assembly Constituency and that the 14 contingency staffs were appointed after walk-in-interview. She also referred to the paragraph No. 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 and submits that the contingency workers were appointed on need basis, for performing the job of like gardening, watering, gate-keeping and as a Chowkidar, Mali, Sweeper, etc. 4.3. Ms. Ete also submits that the services of the aforementioned 14 contingency workers are required in the department, otherwise it will be difficult to maintain the nurseries and garden of the department and under such circumstances, she submits that once the clear response is received from the Government, then proper action will be taken in respect of keeping on hold the engagement of 14 contingency workers and releasing of their salaries. Consideration of this Court:- 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record. Page No.# 8/9 7. It appears from the impugned letter, dated 08.04.2025, that the same was issued on the basis of the letter of MLA of Doimukh Assembly Constituency, dated 03.04.2025. But, in their respective affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 – 5 have made no comment in respect of the said letter, rather a contention has been made that the engagement order of the petitioners and releasing of their wages have not been kept on hold due to the said letter issued by the MLA. 7.1. Further, it appears that there is no Recruitment Rules for engagement of contingency workers in the department. It was made on need basis. Further, 14 contingency workers, who have attained the 60 years of age, have been relieved from the department and the vacancy arose out of the same has been notified and walk-in-interview was conducted and the petitioners had participated in the same and thereafter, they have been selected and appointed therein and their wages for 2 months and 19 days were also paid. 8. Though an averment has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities that Anti-Corruption Bureau has been investigating the matter and they have sought information from the respondent authorities, yet no such letter has been placed on the record. 9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been working since the date of their appointments and they have received salaries only for 2 months and 19 days and the wages for rest of the period have not been released. Nothing could be demonstrated by the State respondents that there were gross illegalities in their appointments, while there is no Recruitment Rules for appointment of contingency staffs. It also cannot be said that their appointments are dehors Rules. They appear to be selected through an interview process. They are admittedly appointed on need basis and it appears Page No.# 9/9 from the submission of Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, that the department is facing difficulties in maintaining the nurseries and the gardens in absence of the workers. Conclusion:- 10. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also taking note of the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 – 5, disowning the direction received from the MLA and keeping on hold the engagement orders of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that keeping on hold the engagement order of the petitioners and also their wages, vide impugned letter dated 08.04.2025, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. 11. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to release the unpaid wages of the petitioner. 12. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities, within a period of one week from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant