Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010266582024 2025:GAU-AS:2386 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6732/2024 JAMAL UDDIN MONDAL AND 2 ORS. SON OF ESMAIL MONDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHASSANICHAR PT-II, UNDER P.O. A.M.CO. ROAD, P.S. DHUBRI IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI, PIN- 783323, ASSAM TUTOR- BIKROM MEMORIAL M E SCHOOL, EDUCATIONAL BLOCK- BEEO, GAURIPUR, DHUBRI 2: FAZLUL HOQUE SON OF LATE SAKAT ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAGAL CHARA PT-II UNDER P.O. CHAGAL CHARA P.S. DHUBRI IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI PIN- 783324 ASSAM TUTOR- CHAGAL CHARA PT-II M E SCHOOL BLOCK- BEEO GAURIPUR DHUBRI 3: SOMSER ALI SK (SHEIKH) SON OF LATE MONER UDDIN SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BOGULAMARI UNDER P.O. A.M.CO. ROAD P.S. DHUBRI IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI PIN- 783323 ASSAM TUTOR- HAFIZA KHATUN GIRLS M E SCHOOL BLOCK- BEEO GAURIPUR DHUBR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI PIN- 783301 ASSAM 5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (EC-II) DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. B Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. Also heard the learned standing counsel, Finance Department appearing for respondent No.5. Page No.# 3/4 2. Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are serving as Tutors in various Elementary Schools in the State of Assam and they are presently receiving fixed monthly salary. The petitioners’ prayer is for a direction to be issued to the respondents to grant them regular pay scale, as per the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed in a series of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) 2729/2019. He accordingly submits that the present case being a covered case, the same should be disposed of in terms of paragraph 179 of the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 2729/2019. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have got no objection with the prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel, in view of the fact that this is a covered case. 4. The only issue that has to be decided is as to whether the case of the petitioners herein is covered by the judgment and order passed in WP(C) 2729/2019. The prima facie view of this Court is that the case of the petitioners herein and the case of the petitioners in WP(C) 2729/2019 appears to be similar. However, to enable the State respondents to make a verification, with regard to whether the case of the petitioners herein is similar to the case of the petitioners in WP(C) 2729/2019, the State respondents are given time to verify the order/s dated 05.02.2021, by which the service of the petitioners have been provincialised as Tutors. 5. The above being said, paragraph-179 of the judgment and order passed in WP(C) 2729/2019 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : Page No.# 4/4 “179. It is true that the courts cannot direct the legislature to enact law in a particular manner. However, in discharge of its statutory obligation the Government, in exercise of its Rule making power, will have a duty to frame Rules for proper implementation of the provisions of the Statute. While framing the Rules, the State will also be under a bounden duty to, not only to act in terms of the scheme of the Act but also to unflinchingly adhere to the Constitutional norms of equality. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the State Government itself, in exercise of its Rule making power under section 23 of the Act, takes necessary steps to provide for a regular pay scale to the Tutors, which can even be commensurate to the pay structure indicated in the Schedule of the Governing Act. Such a measure, in our view, will restore the equality of treatment to this category of Teachers with the other Government employees and at the same time will not become burdensome to the exchequer. We, therefore, direct the respondents to initiate necessary steps in the matter, in the light of the observations made here-in-above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from today.” 6. Accordingly, the State respondents shall make a verification of the provincialisation orders of the petitioners and if they find that the petitioners’ case and the case of the petitioners in WP(C) 2729/2019 is the same, the directions passed in paragraph-179 of the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 2729/2019 shall also be made applicable to the petitioners. 7. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant