SRI MONESWAR BORO AND 15 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
WP(C)/839/2025 · 2025-02-18
Kaushik Goswami
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7725 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7725 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010032822025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/839/2025 SRI MONESWAR BORO AND 15 ORS S/O- LATE RABI RAM BORO, VILL- OUGURI, PO MAHARIPARA, PS GORESWAR, DISTRICT TAMULPUR, PIN 781364, ASSAM. 2: SRI CHAKRADHAR DAS S/O LATE BIPAN CHANDRA DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZKACHULA. PO MAHARIPARA PO GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 3: SRI GOBINDA RABHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO CHENIGAON PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781366 4: SRI GOPAL DEKA S/O LATE RANTI RAM DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BETAGAON PO NAOKATA NATAKATA PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 5: SRI SIVA RAM KALITA S/O LATE ADITYA KALITA
Page No.# 2/7
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TENGAJHAR PO TENGAJHAR PS GORESWAR DIST BAKSA ASSAM 781364 6: SRI NAREN RABHA S/O CHANDRA RABHA
RESIDENT OF BARIGAON PO CHENIGAON PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 7: ANIL DAS S/O SRI MOHANBASTI DAS
RESIDENT OF BARIGAON PO CHENIGAON PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 8: SRI BULARAM BORO S/O LATE NALIN CH. BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMCHAJHAR PO MAHARIPARA PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 9: SRI INDIRA DEKA S/O UPENDRA DEKA
RESIDENT OF RANGMAHAL PO KERPABITHA PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781366 10: SRI BRIHOSPATI BORO S/O LATE TEPA BORO
RESIDENT F VILLAGE 3 NO. GORESWAR
Page No.# 3/7 PO AND PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781366 11: MEDHI RAM BORO S/O LATE CHANDRADHAR BORO RESIDENT OF OUGURI PO BHOGPUR PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781366 12: SRI MIRA BASUMATARY W/O BIKASH BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BENTA RAJAKHAT PO BENTA PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 13: SRI DHIREN RABHA S/O CHANDRA KANTA RABHA
RESIDENT OF BARIGAON PO CHENIGAON PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 14: NAGEN BORO S/O ANIL BORO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO TENGAJHAR PS GORESWAR DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 781364 15: DIPEN BORO S/O LATE MONO RAM BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ BORIGOG PO AND PS GHOGRAPAR DIST NALBARI ASSAM 781396 16: SASTI RAM BORO S/O KANTA RAM BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BENTA OUGURI PO MAHARIPARA PS GORESWAR
Page No.# 4/7 DIST TAMULPUR ASSAM 78136 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 DIST.
KAMRUP M ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ZONE II ASSAM TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION DIST SONITPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,
Page No.# 5/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 19.02.2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D.S. Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 2. The claim of the writ petitioners is for a direction to regularize their services which they have been rendering as Muster Roll workers since their date of appointment in the office of the Executive Engineer, Tezpur Irrigation Department. 3. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Sri Upen Das, reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493. He accordingly submits that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits granted by this Court in Sri Upen Das (supra). 4. Ms. D.S. Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department appearing for the State respondents does not object to the said prayer. 5. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record. 6. Apt to refer to paragraph No. 22 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Upen Das (supra), which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
Page No.# 6/7
“22. It is, however, heartening to learn that the State Government has agreed not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The State Government has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken as welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question.
We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017.”
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that similar reliefs are sought for in the present case and since the petitioners are also Muster Roll workers, the writ petition can be closed directing the concerned respondents to carry out the directions in terms of the Judgment & Order passed in the case of Sri Upen Das (supra). 8. It is however made clear that before any orders are passed in terms of the directions contained in Sri Upen Das (supra), the respondent authorities are entitled to carry out a proper verification to find out if the petitioners are still entitled to the claim as prayed for. Page No.# 7/7
9. In the event, if they are entitled, the benefits be conferred in terms of the aforesaid directions contained in Sri Upen Das (supra). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant