Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010047012026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/78/2026 AMAL KANTA DAS SON OF- LATE SARAT CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL.- NARAINPUR PART- II, P.O.- NORTH NARAINPUR, P.S.- ALGAPUR, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. PIN-788801. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT I.W.T ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI7. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION SILCHAR P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. PIN-788003. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND G) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29. 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 Page No.# 2/4 For the appellant : Mr. L.R. Mazumder, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R.B. Goswami, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. A.G., Assam for Respondent No.5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25-03-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondent No.5. 2. The appellant was hired on daily wage/muster-roll basis on 1st of August, 1993 and retired on 31st of 2024 without his service ever having been regularised. He claims to have performed the same duties as the regular employee for decades but received only the minimum pay scale after the 2017 High Court judgment directing him to be paid the minimum of the regular scale. After his retirement, he had applied for gratuity, which was not paid. Thereafter, he approached the Court vide WP(C) 539/2026 praying for twin reliefs, namely, regularisation of his services and payment of all pensionary benefits, gratuity and arrears. Page No.# 3/4 3. However, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.02.2026, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. A perusal of the judgment impugned reflects that the prayer for regularising the services of the appellant could not have been allowed, for, it would have been a direct violation of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Sri Upen Das, (2017) 4 GLR 493, which had followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that a Court cannot direct for regularisation of a muster-roll employee who was not appointed through a proper process. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the reliance placed by appellant on the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & others vs. State of UP and Another, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735 was unfounded. 5. In the case of Dharam Singh (supra), the employees were selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission between 1989 and 1992, whereas the appellant herein was simply engaged locally as a daily wage worker. Thus, the liberal view taken in that case with respect to pension and gratuity would not be applicable in the case of the appellant. 6. Mr. Mazumder, however, submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the State to hide behind the shield of Umadevi (supra) for justifying the exploitation meted out to the appellant, especially when he had served for decades, performing duties identical to the duties performed by permanent employees. The learned Single Page No.# 4/4 Judge, according to Mr. Mazumder, did not take into account the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 7. The core submission of Mr. Mazumder, therefore, is that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that long term denial of pension and gratuity to employees who have served for more than 30 years would violate the basic principle of fairness. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no other order could have been passed by the learned Single Judge, especially in view of the fact that the appointment of the appellant on the muster-roll was not through a proper process. That apart, after his engagement on purely temporary basis in the year 1993, he started getting the basic minimum scale of equally placed regular employee from 2005 onwards. This was never questioned by the appellant in his service tenure. 9. Under such circumstances, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant is not backed by any reasonable argument for it to be allowed. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant