Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010020812022 2026:GAU-AS:14885 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1129/2022 KUNJA MOHAN NATH S/O LATE SIBA RAM NATH, R/O VILL- DOKMOKA, P.O. AND P.S.- DOKMOKA, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782441 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PENASION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781036 Page No.# 2/17 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARBI ANGLONG (IRRIGATION) DIVISION DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006. 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, MR. N UPADHAYAY, SC, IRRIGATION DEPTT.,MR. R BORPUJARI, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,MR B GOGOI, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, AG,GA, ASSAM,SC, K A A C Linked Case : WP(C)/2804/2022 SMT. KRISHNA BHUYAN W/O- TUTU BHUYAN D/O- LATE SUBHADRA BHUYAN R/O- VILLAGE RAJAMAIDAM GAJPURIA ROAD WARD NO.-1 P.O AND P.S- JORHAT DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785008 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/17 FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI- ANGLONG ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-36 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARBI ANGLONG ( IRRIGATION) DIVISION (I) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. Page No.# 4/17 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : N/A Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. G. R. A. Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Irrigation Department; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent Finance Department; Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, representing the State respondents; Mr. J. Chutia, learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel for the respondent KAAC, assisted by Ms. S. Kemprai; and Mr. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AG. 2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the non- extension of pensionary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 and to the mother of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2804/2022. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 has challenged the communication dated 18.01.2022 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (MI), Irrigation, Assam, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2804/2022 has challenged the communication dated 10.09.2021 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (MI), Irrigation, Assam, whereby the respective pension proposals were returned. Page No.# 5/17 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 is that he was initially engaged as a Work Charged Section Assistant under the Karbi-Anglong Division, Irrigation Department on 21.05.1991. His service was terminated on 24.09.1991, following which he, along with 17 other similarly situated persons, approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No.4919/1991. The Civil Rule was disposed of by judgment and order dated 29.01.1993, by which this Court directed the respondents to verify the vacancy position and frame a fair and just scheme for regularisation of the 18 petitioners, taking into consideration of their length of service and qualifications, with waiver of the age bar and compliance with the reservation requirements, and the scheme was required to be framed within six months. 4. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, he was appointed/re-appointed as a Work Charged Section Assistant on 27.07.1993. It is his case that despite the judgment dated 29.01.1993 and the subsequent communications concerning regularisation, his service was never formally regularised. He continued in service and ultimately retired on superannuation on 30.06.2021. Thereafter, his pension papers were submitted by the concerned authorities and were forwarded to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam on 03.11.2021. The pension proposal was thereafter returned by the communication dated 18.01.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In W.P.(C) No.2804/2022, the case of the petitioner is that her mother, Late Smt. Subhadra Bhuyan, was initially appointed as a Work Charged Khalasi on 21.05.1991 and that her service was terminated on 24.09.1991. Her mother, along with 17 other persons, approached this Court being Civil Rule Page No.# 6/17 No.4919/1991, which was disposed on 29.01.1993. The petitioner states that pursuant to the said judgment, her mother was appointed/re-appointed on 27.07.1993 and continued in service thereafter. It is further stated that notwithstanding the communications issued from time to time concerning regularisation, her mother’s service was never formally regularised. 6. Late Smt. Subhadra Bhuyan retired from service on 28.02.2019. The petitioner states that pension proposal of her mother was submitted to the competent authority and was subsequently re-submitted to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam on 28.07.2021 after rectification of certain technical errors. The pension proposal was thereafter returned by the communication dated 10.09.2021, stating that the employee concerned was not entitled to pensionary benefits or terminal gratuity as per the rules and calling upon the concerned authority to go through the relevant rules on the matter. Being aggrieved by the non-extension of pensionary benefits to her mother, this petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. R. A. Mottaquee, submits that the employees concerned were amongst the 18 petitioners in Civil Rule No.4919/1991 and that their cases stand on a different footing from a claim based merely on long continuation as Work Charged employees. It is submitted that by judgment and order dated 29.01.1993, this Court directed the respondents to verify the vacancy position and frame a fair and just scheme for regularisation of the 18 petitioners, having regard to their length of service and qualifications, with waiver of the age bar and compliance with the reservation requirements. Pursuant thereto, the employees were appointed/re-appointed on 27.07.1993 and continued in service thereafter. 8. Learned counsel submits that the judgment dated 29.01.1993 attained Page No.# 7/17 finality and was never set aside or modified in any subsequent proceeding. Reliance is placed upon Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2021) 17 SCC 693, and Monish Das v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2020 (1) GLT 69, to contend that a judgment which has attained finality between the parties cannot subsequently be reopened or rendered ineffective. Reference is also made to Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 613, in support of the principle of finality of a matter already decided between the same parties. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent change in the legal position cannot, by itself, dilute the binding effect of the judgment dated 29.01.1993. It is contended that the said judgment continues to bind the parties unless set aside in a manner known to law. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities continued to deal with the question of regularisation after the judgment dated 29.01.1993. Learned counsel refers to the communications dated 13.11.2006 and 10.07.2015, particularly the communication dated 13.11.2006 proposing regularisation of Work Charged, Muster Roll, Casual and similarly situated workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993, in which the petitioner in WP(C)No. 1129/2022 claims that his name was included. It is contended that despite these steps, the service of the concerned employees were never formally regularised. 10. Learned counsel submits that the Finance Department O.M. dated 16.06.2012 and the Notification dated 03.10.2019 cannot be relied upon without first examining the effect of the judgment dated 29.01.1993, pursuant to which the concerned employees were appointed/re-appointed on 27.07.1993, and their subsequent service history. It is contended that the subsequent Government Page No.# 8/17 instructions cannot be applied in isolation without examining the rights and obligations flowing from the earlier judgment and the manner in which the authorities dealt with the question of regularisation thereafter. Reliance is placed upon State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar Association, Bandipora, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410, to contend that Umadevi (3)‘s case does not prevent the State from implementing a regularisation policy in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the decision in State of Assam v. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) GLT 605, relied upon by the respondents, cannot be applied without examining the distinguishing feature of the present cases, namely, the judgment dated 29.01.1993 passed in respect of these very employees and their subsequent appointment/re-appointment pursuant thereto. It is contended that the petitioners had approached this Court much before the subsequent decisions governing regularisation of Work Charged and Muster Roll employees. 12. Learned counsel also submits that the concerned employees continued in service for several decades and were extended the regular scale of pay and other service-related benefits. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 was also maintaining a GPF account and his pension papers were processed and forwarded to the Chief Engineer. Both employees were allowed to continue in service until their respective retirements. Learned counsel submits that the service records and the manner in which the employees were continued in service for such a long period require consideration for their claims for pensionary benefits. 13. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners do not rest their claims Page No.# 9/17 merely on the length of service of the concerned employees as Work Charged employees, but seek examination of their claims in the backdrop of the judgment dated 29.01.1993, the subsequent steps taken towards regularisation and their service history. 14. On the other hand, Mr. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Irrigation Department, submits that the employees concerned were appointed as Work Charged employees and that their appointments were purely temporary. It is contended that the appointment/re-appointment dated 27.07.1993 pursuant to the judgment dated 29.01.1993 did not amount to appointment against a regular sanctioned or permanent post and that there was no subsequent order regularising their services. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the judgment dated 29.01.1993 required verification of the vacancy position and framing of a scheme for regularisation and did not itself confer regular status upon the 18 petitioners. 15. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the service of the concerned employees has to be considered in the context of the administrative arrangement applicable to the Karbi Anglong area under the Sixth Schedule and the transfer of subjects, including Irrigation, to the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. It is contended that there is no material to show that the concerned employees were appointed against sanctioned regular posts and that long continuation in Work Charged service or payment of salary in a particular scale cannot alter the nature of their appointments. Reliance is placed upon Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and State of Assam v. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) GLT 605, in support of the contention that mere continuation in Work Charged service does Page No.# 10/17 not confer regular status or consequential pensionary benefits. 16. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the pension proposals were returned in the course of examination under the applicable pension provisions and Government instructions. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022, the proposal was returned for re-examination with reference to Government Notification dated 03.10.2019 read with Rule 153 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, while in W.P.(C) No.2804/2022, the proposal was returned with the observation that the employee was not entitled to pensionary benefits or terminal gratuity as per the rules. It is contended that the claim has to be examined with reference to the applicable rules and the nature of the appointments held by the concerned employees. 17. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance, while relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1/2022 and WA No.9/2022, decided on 13.03.2023, wherein the claims for pension by a Work Charged employee and a Muster Roll employee were examined with reference to the absence of material showing appointment against sanctioned posts and the requirements under Rules 31 and 36 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, submits that this Court, in the said judgment, declined the claim for pension and held that long service by itself would not satisfy the requirements of qualifying service. Learned counsel submits that the judgment dated 29.01.1993 did not itself regularise the services of the concerned employees and that the petitioners cannot claim pension merely on the basis of their long service as Work Charged employees. 18. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the judgment dated 29.01.1993 required the authorities to verify the vacancy position and frame a scheme and Page No.# 11/17 did not amount to an order of automatic regularisation. It is contended that the subsequent appointment/re-appointment of the concerned employees as Work Charged employees did not confer substantive or permanent status upon them and that their claims must therefore be tested against the statutory conditions governing qualifying service under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 19. Learned Government Advocate, representing the State respondents, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the Irrigation Department and the Finance Department. 20. Learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council submits that the service of the concerned employees in the Karbi Anglong area has to be examined in the context of the constitutional and administrative framework applicable to the Sixth Schedule area and the transfer of subjects to the Council. Learned counsel adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State respondents insofar as the legal entitlement is concerned. 21. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 22. The claims of the petitioners have their origin in the judgment and order dated 29.01.1993 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No.4919/1991. The petitioners were amongst the 18 petitioners in the said proceeding and, following the judgment, they were appointed/re-appointed on 27.07.1993. It is noticed that the direction issued by this Court was to verify the vacancy position and to frame a fair and just scheme for regularisation, having regard to the length of service and qualifications of the petitioners, with waiver of the age bar and compliance with the reservation requirements. The said judgment did not itself regularise the services of the employees, but it was followed by their Page No.# 12/17 appointment/re-appointment and by further correspondences concerning their regularisation. 23. The authorities thereafter continued to deal with the question of regularisation of Work Charged and similarly situated employees engaged prior to 01.04.1993. The communication dated 13.11.2006, referred to by the petitioners, proposed regularisation of Work Charged, Muster Roll, Casual and similarly situated workers, and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 claims that his name was included in the relevant proposal. The communication dated 10.07.2015 issued by the Executive Engineer, Karbi Anglong Division, Irrigation, Diphu, forwarding the list of Work Charged Khalasis and Section Assistants under the Division under the subject of regularisation, further shows that the question of regularisation continued to be dealt with by the authorities. The concerned employees, however, continued in service without any formal order of regularisation and ultimately retired from service. 24. The subsequent legal developments concerning Work Charged employees in the State of Assam have to be considered in this factual background. In Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909, against the Upen Das (Supra) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the claims of Work Charged and similarly situated employees in the context of the State's policy for regularisation of employees engaged prior to 01.04.1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the Government decisions and communications concerning such employees, including the O.M. dated 16.06.2012, and dealt with the objection that regularisation could not be granted merely on the ground of continuation in service in the absence of sanctioned posts. After consideration, the Hon'ble Page No.# 13/17 Supreme Court directed the State to undertake the process of regularisation of the eligible appellants and directed consequential pensionary and post-retiral benefits in respect of the employees who had already retired. 25. The judgment in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra) would not be construed and mean that every Work Charged employee is entitled to regularisation or pension merely by reason of long service. The entitlement continues to depend upon the facts of the individual case and the applicable policy. The concerned employees in the present cases were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, had approached this Court in Civil Rule No.4919/1991, obtained a direction concerning their regularisation and were thereafter appointed/re- appointed on 27.07.1993. Their cases therefore cannot be examined merely by treating them as persons who continued in Work Charged service for a long period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the Work Charged employees shall be treated as a distinct class and their entitlement to pension and their post-retiral benefits shall not be adversely affected by the observations made in the Upen Das’s (Supra) case and also granted liberty to agitate before the State Government as regards their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits. 26. The judgment dated 29.01.1993 cannot be treated as having become irrelevant merely because the employees were not thereafter formally regularised. The judgment continues to bind the parties in respect of the directions issued therein. The subsequent Government instructions and the later legal developments may govern the manner in which the claims are to be dealt with, but the earlier judgment, the appointment/re-appointment made pursuant thereto and the subsequent regularisation exercises form part of the service Page No.# 14/17 history of the concerned employees. These circumstances have to be considered together while determining their entitlement. 27. Regard being had to the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.1/2022 and W.A. No.9/2022, decided on 13.03.2023, relied upon by learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, this Court is of the view that same does not alter the above position. The claims in those appeals arose from the service rendered by the concerned employees as a Work-Charged Sectional Assistant and a Muster Roll Worker respectively. The Court found that there was no material showing that their appointments or engagements were against sanctioned posts and considered their claims with reference to Rules 31 and 36 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. The factual feature present in the cases before this Court, particularly, the earlier judgment dated 29.01.1993 concerning the very employees and their subsequent appointment/re-appointment pursuant thereto, did not arise in the same manner in those appeals. The said judgment, therefore, is distinguishable on its facts on examination of the present claims in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 28. The principles relied upon by the petitioners concerning the finality of the judgment dated 29.01.1993 have to be considered in this background. The judgment was never set aside or modified in any subsequent proceeding. At the same time, the judgment did not itself direct automatic regularisation, but required the respondents to undertake the process contemplated therein. That apart, the subsequent legal position and Government instructions may have a bearing upon the ultimate entitlement of the concerned employees, but they Page No.# 15/17 cannot be applied without examining the effect of the earlier judgment and the subsequent steps taken by the authorities pursuant thereto. 29. The impugned communications do not disclose such an examination. In W.P.(C) No.1129/2022, the communication dated 18.01.2022 returned the pension proposal for re-examination with reference to Government Notification dated 03.10.2019 read with Rule 153 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. In W.P.(C) No.2804/2022, the communication dated 10.09.2021 returned the pension proposal stating that the employee was not entitled to pensionary benefits or terminal gratuity as per the rules. The communications do not show consideration of the judgment dated 29.01.1993, the subsequent appointment/re-appointment dated 27.07.1993 or the subsequent correspondence relating to regularisation. 30. The records further disclose differing positions regarding the nature of the appointments. While the Department has referred to the absence of information regarding the availability of a regular post and the subsequent regularisation of the employees, the affidavit of the concerned Executive Engineer proceeds on the basis that the appointments were not against regular sanctioned posts. The original service records and the records relating to the proceedings arising out of Civil Rule No.4919/1991 would therefore have to be examined to determine the precise nature of the appointments and the steps taken thereafter in relation to regularisation. 31. In view of the above, the claims of the petitioners cannot be rejected merely by applying the general proposition that long service as a Work Charged employee does not by itself confer a right to pension. Their claims have to be examined in the factual and legal background in which the concerned Page No.# 16/17 employees were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, approached this Court, obtained the judgment dated 29.01.1993 and were thereafter appointed/re-appointed and continued in service. The applicability of the Government policy and instructions, the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and the effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra) will have to be considered on the basis of the complete service records. 32. Accordingly, the communication dated 18.01.2022 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (MI), Irrigation, Assam, in W.P.(C) No.1129/2022 and the communication dated 10.09.2021 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (MI), Irrigation, Assam, in W.P.(C) No.2804/2022 are set aside. The competent authority shall reconsider the claims of the petitioners after examining the original service records, the records relating to Civil Rule No.4919/1991, the judgment and order dated 29.01.1993, the subsequent appointment/re- appointment orders and the records concerning the subsequent regularisation exercises. The competent authority shall further consider the applicable Government policy and instructions, the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra). 33. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned order dealing with the claim of each petitioner and communicate the same to the respective petitioner. If, upon such examination, the concerned employee is found entitled to pensionary and other retiral/consequential benefits, same shall be granted to the petitioners, in Page No.# 17/17 accordance with law. 34. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant