Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010266692025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6977/2025 ABDUL JOLIL MIAH AND 7 ORS S/O BASIRUDDIN SARKAR, RESIDENT OF MANULLAPARA, P.O. FEKAMARI, MANKACHAR, PIN- 783135, IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM 2: SHEIKH ALAUDDIN ABDULLAH ALIES ALAUDDIN ABDULLAH s/o SHEIKH BAKHT ZAMAL RESIDENT OF VILL- KALAIRALGA PT-I UNDER P.O.- KOKRADANGA P.S.- SUKCHAR PIN-783135 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 3: MOSTAQUE FARUK S/O RIAJUL HOQUE RESIDENT OF VILL P.O.- KALAPANI PIN-783135 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM. 4: SHONA MIAH S/O LATE LATE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILL. CHENGURCHAR UNDER P.O- PURANDIARA P.S. MANKACHAR PIN-783131 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 5: NAZMA BEGUM S/O LATE TOFAZZAL HOQUE RESIDENT OF VILL-SARKARPARA UNDER P.O.- MANKACHAR PIN-783131 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 6: ABDULLAH AHMED S/O MOKLESUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF MIAHPARA P.O.- MANKACHAR P.S. MANKACHAR PIN-783131 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 7: MOLOY KR PAUL S/O MADAN MOHAN PAUL RESIDENT OF PAULPARA P.O. MANKACHAR PIN-783131 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 8: RAFIUL ANSARY ALIES RAFIKUL HOQUE ANSARY S/O MALIK ANSARY RESIDENT OF VILL. DIARA BAZAR P.O. RADHAMADHABHAT PIN-783131 IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ASSAM EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 Page No.# 3/7 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN-781019 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR P.O P.S-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DISTRICT-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MS Y AFREEN,MR. ARIF AHMED,MR P J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.12.2025 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to grant arrear salaries and the increments to them for the period from May, 1995 to February, 2003, as similarly situated persons have already been provided with the same relief and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representations, dated 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.12.2024, in Civil Appeal No. 1943/2022. 3. Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Page No.# 4/7 petitioners herein were appointed an Assistant Teacher in Dhubri district in the year 1993, against sanctioned post, pursuant to proper selection and approval of the Government and since then, they have been continuously discharging their duties. Thereafter, in view of the controversies in respect of appointment of teachers, the State respondents have constituted one committee, namely Manoharan Committee and the said committee had submitted its report, wherein the petitioners were categorized as irregular appointees. However, their services were regularized, vide order dated 05.03.2001, with effect from 01.08.2000 and subsequently, adjusted by the Director of Elementary Education, vide order dated 15.05.2003. 3.1. Mr. B.P. Borah further submits that despite rendering uninterrupted services, the petitioners were denied arrear salaries and increments for the period from May, 1995 to February, 2003, even though their services were utilized by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 2060/2008 and the same was disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider their cases. But, their claim was rejected on 21.10.2009, by the respondent authorities. 3.2. Further submission of Mr. B.P. Borah is that some similarly situated teachers had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 5286/2004 and in the said writ petition, this Court had held that the said petitioners were entitled to arrear salaries and the said decision was upheld in W.A. No. 46/2013 as well as in Review Petition No. 81/2016, filed by the respondent authorities and despite such authoritative pronouncements of this Court, the petitioners were arbitrarily denied similar benefits, merely because they had not been a party in those proceedings. Page No.# 5/7 3.3. Mr. B.P. Borah also submits that the grounds for denial of the benefits to the present petitioners are arbitrary, as it is well settled proposition of law, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Others, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714 and in K.I. Shephard & Others vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431 and also in the decision of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, wherein it has been held that once a declaration of law is made, identically placed employees cannot be compelled to litigate separately and must be extended the same benefits. 3.4. Mr. B.P. Borah further submits that, thereafter, the petitioners had submitted two representations on 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025, before the competent authorities, but the same failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities and thereby, their rights, guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 4. Per-contra, Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representations dated 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025, filed by the petitioners after due verification of the relevant documents. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Page No.# 6/7 6. It is not in dispute that once a declaration of law is made, identically placed employees cannot be compelled to litigate separately and they shall be extended the same benefits. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I. Shephard (supra) and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra). 7. It appears from the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5286/2004 that the petitioners of the said petition, were held to be entitled to their arrear salaries from their respective dates of appointment and this Court had also directed to take special measures, like creation of supernumerary post and special allocation, in order to make payment of the arrear salaries and the said order was unsuccessfully challenged in W.A. No. 46/2013 as well as in Review Petition No. 81/2016, by the State respondents. 7.1. Further it appears that the present petitioners are also similarly situated with the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 5286/2004 and in view of the law laid down in the case of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I. Shephard (supra) and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra), the present petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefits, though they were not a party in W.P.(C) No. 5286/2004. 7.2. It is not in dispute that on 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025, the petitioners have filed two representations addressing the Director of Elementary Education Department and also the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Elementary Education, but the said representations failed to evoke any response. 8. Under such circumstances and also taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation, along with a Page No.# 7/7 copy of this writ petition and the documents enclosed therewith, before the respondent No. 3 and on such representation being filed, the respondent No. 3 shall dispose of the same by a speaking order, extending the benefit of the judgment and order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5286/2004, subject, however, to due verification of the service particulars of the present petitioners. 9. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant