Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010265222025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6812/2025 ANANTA BORO AND 7 ORS S/O-SAMBANDHA BORO, R/O-THAKURKUCHI GAON, CHANDRAPUR, DIST- KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781150. GRADE- IV EMPLOYEE OF CHANDRAPUR SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAMRUP M. 2: MILAN CHANDRA NATH S/O- GOLOK CHANDRA NATH R/O- MALLIBARI BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781121. JR. ASSTT OF BALABHADRA OJA HIGH SCHOOL KAMRUP M. 3: SANJOY DEKA S/O-RAMESH DEKA R/O- BELKONA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781381. JR. ASSTT OF UTTAR PUB KAMRUP SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP R. 4: DHIREN MALAKAR S/O- KALI RAM MALAKAR R/O- MALAYBARI KHETRI DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 782403. JR. ASSTT OF MALAYBARI SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP M. 5: SUKLESWAR BAISHYA S/O- HAREN BAISHYA R/O- MALAYBARI Page No.# 2/6 KHETRI DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 782403. GRADE- IV EMPLOYEE OF MALAYBARI SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP M. 6: KAILYAN KALITA S/O- MOLOKA KALITA R/O- ARANYA NAGAR CHANDRAPUR DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 781150. JR. ASSTT OF CHANDRAPUR SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP M. 7: RAJASHREE KALITA D/O- JITEN KALITA R/O- TATIMARA CHANDRAPUR DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 781150. LIB. ASSTT OF CHANDRAPUR SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP M. 8: ASHOK KR KALITA S/O- KAJIRAM KALITA R/O- TATIMARA CHANDRAPUR DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 781150. GRADE- IV EMPLOYEE OF CHANDRAPUR SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL KAMRUP M VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM PIN- 781006. 2:THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781006. Page No.# 3/6 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781019 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, MS N CHATTERJEE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 03.12.2025 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, respondent Nos. 1 & 3; and Ms. R.M. Barooah, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, respondent No. 2. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to provide them regular scale of pay along with all other financial and service benefits as granted/would be to those similarly and equally placed employees of Venture Educational Institutions, whose services were provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (the Act of 2011 hereinafter) and the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Non- Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institutions Act, 2018 (the Act of 2018 hereinafter) and also in terms of the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Motaleb and Others vs. The State of Assam and Others, in W.P.(C) No. 3239/2023. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners Page No.# 4/6 herein are serving as Junior Assistant, Library Assistant and Grade – IV employees, in different secondary schools and their names were recommended for provincialisation under the Act of 2011 and as such, the services of many incumbents were provincialised in a phase manner. But, the services of the present petitioner were not provincialised under the Act of 2011 and in the meantime, this Court had struck down the Act of 2011. Thereafter, the Government, in compliance with the directions of this Court, had introduced the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- Organization of Education Institutions) Act, 2017. But, there was no whisper about the non-teaching staff and therefore, the Government of Assam had amended the said Act in 2018 and accordingly, the services of the present petitioners were provincialised. 3.1. Further submission of Mr. Dutta is that in the Act of 2018, the non-teaching staffs were provided with fixed pay, which was challenged in a few writ petitions and a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Abdul Motaleb (Supra), had interfered with the said provisions and held that the principles for payment of regular scale to tutors as held in the case of Mohor Ali Sheikh and Others vs. The State of Assam and Others, reported in 2024 5 GLT 689, shall also be applicable to the non-teaching staffs and as such, being similarly situated, the present petitioners are also entitled to similar benefits. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, submits that it is well settled proposition of law that when a relief is granted to some persons, the other similarly situated persons are also entitled to the same. However, in the present case, the petitioners have not filed any representation before the respondent authorities for consideration of their prayer. 4.1. Further submission of Mr. Sarma is that this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the present Page No.# 5/6 petitioners in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Motaleb (Supra). 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 decision of Abdul Motaleb (Supra). 6. It appears that in the aforementioned decision, a Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph No. 16, has observed as under:- “16. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions stands allowed by holding that the non-teaching staff would be entitled to equal treatment under the law as is extended to other government employees by virtue of their acquired status as employees of the State of Assam and since the other employees are enjoying the benefits of regular scale of pay, they should be paid a just scale of pay. However, what should be a just scale of pay is neither a question raised before this Court, nor we are inclined to enter into the said aspect of the matter in these writ petitions. Ordered accordingly.” 7. It is not in dispute that the services of the present petitioners were provincialised under the Act of 2018 and Section 6(2) of the said Act indicates as under:- “6(2) The non-teaching staff whose services have been provincialised under this Act shall get fixed pay as specified in the Schedule with effect from the date of provincialisation of their services, as if they are fresh appointees and they cannot claim any benefit whatsoever in respect of past services rendered by them before provincialisation and in respect of pension, they shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme applicable to the State Government employees of the corresponding rank. However their fixed salary shall not be less than the Page No.# 6/6 minimum wages fixed by the Government from time to time under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.” 8. It is to be noted here that in the case of Abdul Motaleb (Supra), the Division Bench has granted the benefit of just scale of pay to the petitioners of the said writ petition and it is not in dispute that the present petitioners are also similarly situated with the petitioners therein. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioners herein to file individual representations before the respondent authorities by enclosing the present writ petition along with all the relevant documents enclosed therewith and also the decision of Abdul Motaleb (Supra), within a period of 1 (one) week from today. 10. On such representations being filed by the petitioners herein, the respondent authorities shall examine and consider the same in the light of the decision of Abdul Motaleb (Supra), especially paragraph No. 16 of the said decision and if the respondent authorities are satisfied that the present petitioners are similarly situated with the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 3239/2023 (Abdul Motaleb and Others), then they shall also be extended the same benefits of scale of pay as granted in the said case. 11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant