Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010071122024 2026:GAU-AS:12586 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2097/2024 ANURADHA ENDOW AND 5 ORS D/O- SANAKAR ENDOW, RESIDENT OF VILL- UTTARPARA, UDHARBOND, IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788030. 2: SUJIT DAS SON OF SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DURGANAGAR P-VII P.O.- UDHARBOND DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030. 3: ABUL HUSSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE NURUDDIN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILL- BAGPUR PART-II IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788101. 4: SUBRATA NATH S/O- CHITTAMOHAN NATH RESIDENT OF VILL- JARAITOLA IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/14 PIN- 788127. 5: ALTAB HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O- ABDUL SALAM LASKAR RESIDENT OF VILL- GOSSAIPUR PART-III IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030. 6: MADHUMITA BHATTACHARJEE W/O- SRI NEELOTPAL BHATTACHARJEE RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 5 (L) OPPOSITE RANGIRKHARI P.O.- RANGIRKHARI IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788005 VERSUS THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL), BIJULEE BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-01. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI-01. 3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE-B APDCL/ AEGCL/ APGCL FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF OFFICE CUM FIELD ASSISTANT (EXPERIENCED) BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI-01. 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRA APDCL Page No.# 3/14 BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI-1. 5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SILCHAR DIVISION APDCL (CAZ) SILCHAR PIN- 788001. 6:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER UDHARBOND ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030. 7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER SANAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL SANAI DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BORO, MR H P GUWALA,MR. S BASUMATARY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 4/14 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), appearing for all the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the speaking order dated 31.05.2023 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (in short, “APDCL”), whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of service and/or for extending them the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee has been rejected. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularise their services and/or to extend them the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale, in terms of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5629/2020. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have been working under the APDCL on contractual/outsourced basis as Meter Reader and Bill Clerk under Udharbond Electrical Sub Division for a considerable length of time. However, despite their long period of service, the petitioners have continued to be engaged as contractual/outsourced workers without regularisation of their services. 4. The APDCL, vide Advertisement dated 14.08.2018, invited applications for filling up various posts, including Office-cum-Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali, with prescribed eligibility for candidates having experience of working as contractual workers under APDCL, AEGCL and APGCL. The petitioners, having the requisite experience, participated in the selection process. Their names Page No.# 5/14 appeared in the provisional merit list published on 10.02.2020 in respect of candidates who had appeared in the OMR based examination held on 28.04.2019 for the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant (experienced); however, they were not included in the subsequent short-list for document verification. 5. Being aggrieved by their exclusion from the short-list, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5629/2020. In the said proceeding, apart from challenging their exclusion from the short-list, the petitioners also sought consideration of their cases for regularisation on the ground that they had been rendering service under APDCL for more than 10 years. This Court, by judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, directed the APDCL to consider the individual cases of the petitioners in the manner indicated therein. The said judgment was thereafter forwarded to the respondent authorities along with representation dated 06.01.2022 requesting compliance with the directions of this Court. However, as the respondent authorities did not take any action in the matter, the petitioners filed a contempt petition, being Contempt Case No. 738/2022. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondent authorities passed the impugned speaking order dated 31.05.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that none of them had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 and that their engagements were not against sanctioned vacant posts, but were need-based. In respect of the claim for financial benefit, it was stated that more than 800 persons were claiming identical benefits and that extending such benefit would involve a financial burden of approximately Rs.21.85 crores per annum, which APDCL claimed it was not in a position to bear. 6. The petitioner contends that the findings recorded in the impugned Page No.# 6/14 speaking order are contrary to the records and the verification undertaken by the respondent authorities themselves. The ground of financial burden taken by the respondent authorities also cannot be sustained, as the cases of the petitioners were required to be considered in terms of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5629/2020. Hence, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities and the denial of the benefits claimed by them, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned speaking order dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as the respondent authorities, while considering the cases of the petitioners pursuant to the judgment dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, have failed to properly give effect to the directions contained therein. He submits that the petitioners have been working under APDCL for several years and their service particulars were called for and verified by the authorities themselves and therefore, the rejection of their claims on the basis of incorrect particulars cannot be sustained. 8. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, submits that in the case of similarly situated workers, the Government of Assam has already taken a decision to provide job security and other service benefits to non-regularized casual employees and accordingly issued a Notification dated 08.03.2019, inter alia, directing all the Departments to provide the minimum pay scale, i.e. P.B-1 with Grade Pay, Medical Allowance, D.A., House Rent Allowance as per the State norms to their Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual and similarly placed employees. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in filling up the existing vacancies while Page No.# 7/14 excluding the petitioners, despite their having performed duties similar to those performed by regularly appointed employees, is contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work and the guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. While referring to the principles governing regularisation, Mr. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners, places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and submits that the cases of employees, who had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, without the intervention of any order of the Court and against sanctioned posts, were required to be considered as a one-time measure. He submits that the judgment dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, itself directed APDCL to examine the individual cases of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid principle. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment dated 08.06.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 45/2014, and submits that persons who have been continuously engaged and are performing the same nature of work as regularly appointed employees are entitled to at least the minimum of the pay scale payable to the corresponding regularly appointed employees. He submits that the judgment dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, specifically directed APDCL to consider those petitioners who had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 but had completed more than 10 years thereafter for extending the benefit of minimum of the pay scale. 11. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, submits that the plea of financial burden raised by APDCL cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit which the Page No.# 8/14 respondent authorities were directed to be considered by this Court. The respondent authorities, having continued the petitioners in service for several years and having utilized their services during the said period, cannot deny them fair remuneration by merely referring to the financial implications involved. In support of the said submission, learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Others vs. G.S. Uppal & Others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 375. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities were required to examine the individual cases of the petitioners in the manner indicated by this Court in the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020. However, while passing the impugned speaking order, the respondent authorities have failed to undertake such examination in its proper perspective and consequently, have failed to extend to the petitioners the benefit contemplated under the said judgment. 13. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, further submits that the petitioners have rendered service for several years, in some cases extending to more than 15 years, and having utilised their services for such a long period, the respondent authorities cannot adopt a policy of continuing them as contractual/outsourced workers indefinitely while denying them the benefit of regularisation or, at the least, the minimum of the pay scale payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee. Therefore, he submits that the impugned speaking order dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to extend to the petitioners the benefits contemplated under the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020. Page No.# 9/14 14. On the other hand, Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL, submits that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, the respondent authorities duly examined the cases of the petitioners with regard to their claim for regularisation as well as for extending the benefit of minimum of the pay scale. Upon such examination, the APDCL undertook an exercise for identifying the eligible outsourced workers and, having regard to their length of service and the financial position of the Corporation, decided to enhance their remuneration. 15. Learned Standing Counsel submits that, taking into consideration the long- standing demand of the outsourced workers and with the approval of the Government of Assam, the Board of Directors of APDCL, by Resolution No.93(I) (II) adopted in its meeting dated 28.06.2023, decided to enhance the monthly remuneration of eligible outsourced workers receiving direct payment from APDCL. Pursuant thereto, Office Order dated 02.12.2023 was issued prescribing enhanced remuneration based upon the length of engagement of the concerned outsourced workers, with the enhanced remuneration for those having 10 years or more of experience being fixed at Rs. 18,000/- per month. The said benefit was thereafter extended to the petitioners by Office Orders dated 14.12.2023, issued by the concerned Chief Executive Officers of APDCL. Therefore, he submits that the direction of this Court to consider the cases of the petitioners has been duly acted upon and the eligible petitioners have been granted enhanced remuneration. 16. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, further submits that the one-time exercise contemplated in Umadevi (supra) had already been undertaken by APDCL in the year 2013 and the employees found eligible in the said exercise Page No.# 10/14 had already been regularised. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners, who do not fulfill the conditions contemplated for such one-time regularisation, cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. He submits that the engagement of the petitioners was need-based and was not against any sanctioned vacant post. The mere fact that the petitioners have continued to render service for a considerable period would not, by itself, confer upon them any right to regularisation, particularly when the requirements for regularisation in terms of the applicable law are not satisfied. 17. Insofar as the claim for minimum of the pay scale is concerned, learned Mr. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, submits that the judgment dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, did not direct automatic grant of the minimum pay scale to every petitioner, but required the respondent APDCL to consider the individual cases in accordance with the conditions indicated therein. He submits that pursuant to such consideration, the APDCL has already granted enhanced remuneration to the eligible petitioners after extended the benefit of enhanced remuneration to the eligible petitioners, taking into account, inter alia, the financial position of the Corporation and the fact that more than 800 similarly situated outsourced workers were seeking the same benefit. It is contended that extending the minimum of the regular pay scale to all such workers would impose a substantial recurring financial liability upon the Corporation. Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel submits that the decision taken by the APDCL was a conscious decision arrived at upon due consideration of the financial implications involved. 18. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the impugned speaking order dated 31.05.2023 was passed upon consideration of the relevant service Page No.# 11/14 particulars and the financial implications involved and that there is no deliberate non-compliance with the judgment dated 03.01.2022. The petitioners have already been granted enhanced remuneration pursuant to the subsequent decision of APDCL and, therefore, no further direction for grant of minimum of the regular pay scale or regularisation is called for. 19. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 20. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working under the APDCL for a considerable length of time. Record reveals that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, the respondent authorities undertook an exercise for consideration of the individual cases of the petitioners. In the course of such exercise, the APDCL also took a decision to enhance the remuneration of the eligible outsourced workers, having regard to their length of service and the financial position of the Corporation. 21. Pursuant thereto, the Board of Directors of the APDCL, by Resolution No.93(I)(II) adopted in its meeting dated 28.06.2023, decided to enhance the remuneration of the eligible outsourced workers receiving direct payment from the APDCL. In pursuance thereof, by Office Order dated 02.12.2023, the petitioners were extended the benefit of enhanced remuneration, having regard to the length of their engagement. To that extent, the respondent authorities have acted upon the direction issued by this Court in the earlier proceeding. 22. Insofar as the prayer for regularisation is concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot claim such benefit merely on the basis of their length of service. Even taking into consideration the dates of engagement relied Page No.# 12/14 upon by the petitioners, none of them had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Therefore, they do not fall within the category of employees contemplated in Umadevi (supra), whose cases could be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be accepted. 23. The petitioners have also claimed the benefit of minimum of the pay scale. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the petitioners have continued to render service under the APDCL for several years and their claim is that they have been discharging duties corresponding to those performed by regularly appointed employees in the Grade-IV category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, has considered the claim of temporary employees for minimum of the pay scale and has held that where temporary employees discharge duties and responsibilities similar to those discharged by regular employees, they would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the corresponding regular employees. 24. The fact that the petitioners may not be entitled to regularisation would not, by itself, disentitle them from claiming minimum of the pay scale. In Jagjit Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that temporary employees who discharge duties and responsibilities similar to those performed by regular employees cannot be denied the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the corresponding regular post merely on account of the nature of their engagement. 25. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have been continuing in service for a considerable period and have been discharging duties under the APDCL. The fact that they are engaged as outsourced workers cannot be a Page No.# 13/14 ground for denying them the benefit of minimum of the pay scale, if the duties and responsibilities actually performed by them are the same as, or comparable with, those performed by the corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV employees. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners has to be considered with reference to the nature of duties actually discharged by them. 26. The grant of enhanced remuneration pursuant to the Office Order dated 02.12.2023 also does not redress the claim of the petitioners for minimum of the pay scale. The enhanced remuneration was fixed by the APDCL for eligible outsourced workers on the basis of their length of engagement. The claim for minimum of the pay scale, on the other hand, is based upon the nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioners and the principle of equal pay for equal work recognised in Jagjit Singh (supra). 27. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners for the minimum of the pay scale requires to be examined on the basis of the nature of duties and responsibilities actually discharged by each of them and their comparability with the corresponding Grade-IV posts in the regular establishment. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to undertake such examination in respect of each of the petitioners. In the event it is found that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioners are substantially similar to those attached to the corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV posts, the petitioners be granted the minimum of the pay scale applicable to such corresponding posts, in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). 28. Furthermore, if the benefit of enhanced remuneration under the Office Page No.# 14/14 Order dated 02.12.2023 has not already been extended to any of the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall examine their respective cases and extend the said benefit to such petitioners as are found eligible in terms of the said Office Order. 29. The aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken, shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 30. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant