Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010274602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7141/2025 AJIA BEGUM AND ANR RESIDENT OF BAOSKATA L.P. SCHOOL, VILL- CHIRAKHOWA, TETLABARI, P.O. KALAPANI, P.S. MANKACHAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, PIN-783135 ASSAM. 2: RASHEDA BEGUM RESIDENT OF BEPARIPARA MANKACHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR PIN-783131 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 EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN-781019 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.12.16 10:59:54 +05'30' Page No.# 2/5 SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR P.O P.S-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DISTRICT-SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. ARIF AHMED, MS Y AFREEN,MR P J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR B P BORAH BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.12 .2025 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also head Ms. N. Phukan, 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 salary and increment to the deceased husbands of the petitioners from May 1995 to February 2003, as similarly situated persons have already been provided with the said relief, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, dated 09.12.2024. 3. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' husbands were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the then district of Dhubri in the year 1993 against sanctioned vacant posts pursuant to proper selection and Government approval. After such appointment, the husbands of the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties. But, on account of controversies in the appointment of teachers, the State respondents have constituted a committee, which is known as 'Manoharan Committee' and the said Committee has submitted its report categorizing the husbands of the petitioners as 'irregular appointees'. Their services were regularized thereafter' vide order dated 05.03.2001 with effect from 01.08.2000 and subsequently adjusted by the Page No.# 3/5 Director of Elementary Education on 15.05.2003. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have denied arrear salary and increment to the husbands of the petitioners w.e.f. May 1995 to February 2003, even though their services were utilized. Then, the husband of the petitioner No.1 approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2060/2008, which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider their case and thereafter, the representation filed by the husband of the petitioner was rejected on 21.10.2009. The husband of the petitioner No.2 also along with two others similarly situated persons have approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.221/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2009, by rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, similarly situated teachers approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5286/2004 and connected matters, wherein it has been held that the petitioners of the said writ petition are entitled to arrear salaries and the said judgment was upheld in WA No.46/2013 as well as in Review Pet. No.81/2016 and in spite of such authoritative pronouncements, the petitioners were arbitrarily denied similar benefits, merely because they had not been a party in those proceedings. 4. Mr. Borah, further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Ors., reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714 and in the case of K.I. Shephard & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431 and also very recently in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, decided on 09.12.2024, 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. Mr. Borah also submits that very recently this Court has disposed of WP(C) No.5262/2025 [Mosihur Rahman & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam] and WP(C) No.5263/2025 [Nurul Alom v. State of Assam], wherein it has been directed to extend the benefit of Usha Rani's case to the petitioners and since the present petitioners are also similarly situated, similar benefit may be granted to the petitioners also. Mr. Borah further submits that the petitioners have submitted fresh representations dated 04.11.2025 and 01.12.2025, before the competent authorities, but the same failed to evoke any response and he submits that this present writ petition may also be disposed of granting similar Page No.# 4/5 relief as granted by this Court in WP(C) Nos.5262/2025 and 5263/2025. 5. Ms. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that the petitioners may be directed to file fresh representations before the respondent authorities enclosing all relevant documents and the copy of the present writ petition individually and sometime may be granted to the respondent authorities to verify and dispose of the same. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. 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 benefit. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I. Shephard (supra) and Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, decided on 09.12.2024. 8. It also appears from the order of this Court, in WP(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 has also directed to take special measures, like creation of supernumerary post and special allocation, in order to make payment of the arrear salary and the said order was unsuccessfully challenged in the WA No.46/2013, as well as in the Review Petition No.81/2016. It is not in dispute that the deceased husbands of the present petitioners are also similarly situated with the petitioners of WP(C) No.5286/2004. And in view of the law laid down in the cases of Amrit Lal Berry (supra), K.I. Shephard (supra) and Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, decided on 09.12.2024, the deceased husbands of the present petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefits, though they were not a party in the WP(C) No.5286/2004. 9. It also appears that on 04.11.2025 and 01.12.2025, the petitioners have filed two representations addressing the Director, Department of Elementary Education and also the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam, but Page No.# 5/5 the said representations failed to evoke any response. 10. Under such circumstances and also taking note of the submission 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 the copy of this writ petition and the annexures 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 WP(C) No.5286/2004, subject however to verification of the service particulars of the deceased husbands of the present petitioners. 11. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE