Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010120822016 2026:GAU-AS:4351 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6641/2016 DHRUBAJYOTI HAZARIKA and ANR. S/O LT. KULADHAR HAZARIKA R/O VLL- KACHARIGAON P.O. SOOTE, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM 2: MD. MAHIBUL HAQUE S/O KARAM ALI R/O VILL- BAKOLA P.O. BAKOLA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI - 37 ASSAM. 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SONITPUR DIST. SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM. 4:FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE Page No.# 2/7 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R SALOI, MS.S BHUYAN,MR.R KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P and R D, MR A CHALIHA,(R-4),MR A CHALIHA, SC,MS.M BORAH BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 24/03/2026 Heard Ms. S Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A K Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition have raised a grievance with regard to the non-consideration of their cases for regularization as Junior Engineer in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigations instituted by the petitioners, herein. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners were engaged as Junior Engineer on fixed pay basis and posted at Naduar Development Block, Naduar and Sootea Development Block, Sootea, vide order dated 27.02.1997 issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Sonitpur. The petitioners joined their such services and their services were being extended from time to time. The services of the petitioners came to be terminated vide issuance of an order dated 26.02.1998, issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Sonitpur. Being aggrieved, the petitioners along with two others approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 1076/1998, assailing the said order of termination, with a further prayer to allow them to continue in their respective services. Page No.# 3/7 This Court vide order dated 19.01.2004, noticing the issues arising, therein, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by requiring the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the scheme framed for regularization of the casual Junior Engineers working in the District Rural Development Agencies of the State. This Court further provided that till the said consideration is so extended to the petitioners, their present status would be maintained. In terms of the said directions passed by this Court, the petitioners were reinstated in their services vide issuance of an order dated 12.03.1998. As the petitioners were so continuing, the services of the petitioners not being considered for regularization in terms of the scheme holding the field, the petitioners, herein, along with other similarly situated persons were constrained to again approach this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8334/2005. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2012, appreciating the directions passed earlier by this Court in favour of the petitioners in the proceedings of Civil Rule No. 1076/1998 and further that the petitioners being found to be covered by the said scheme, proceeded to direct the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department and the then Director of Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, to deal with the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the said scheme and consider their cases for regularization of their services in terms of the scheme. In spite of the said directions issued by this Court, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered, till date, under the provisions of the scheme already framed in the matter. 4. Ms. S Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the earlier District Rural Development Agencies have now been merged with the Panchayat & Rural Development Department and the petitioners, herein, are presently discharging their duties in the capacity of Junior Engineer on fixed pay basis under the Commissioner of Panchayat & Rural Development Department and they are posted at Naduar Development Block and Sootea Development Block, respectively. Page No.# 4/7 Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although, there is a positive direction issued not once, but twice, in favour of the petitioners by this Court, the respondent authorities have been sitting over the matter, thereby, causing grave injustice to the petitioners. She submits that the cases of persons similarly situated like the petitioners have already been taken up for consideration under the scheme and those persons have already been regularized in their services. However, the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter. In the above premises, Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to complete the process of regularization of the services of the petitioners in accordance with the scheme, already in place in this connection by following the directions passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigations instituted by the petitioners, herein. 5. Per contra, Mr. A K Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department, at the outset, has submitted that as to how the cases of the petitioners were processed for regularization of their services in pursuance to the directions passed earlier by this Court is not known to him, inasmuch as, no instructions in this connection has been furnished to him by the Departmental authorities, although, the present case is pending disposal before this Court since 2016. Mr. Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department, however, submits that he has instructions to the effect that the petitioners were authorized the minimum scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer, following the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners in the present writ petition are not entitled to any further relief, inasmuch as, no regularization of the services of the petitioners would be permissible after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra). In the above premises, Mr. Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department submits that the present writ petition would mandate to be dismissed. Page No.# 5/7 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The claim of the petitioners is for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularization of their services. Admittedly, such regularization after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra) would not be permissible. However, what is to be noticed in the present writ petition is that the petitioners had initially approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 1076/1998, being aggrieved by the termination effected in their services. 8. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2004, on being apprised of a scheme being formulated for regularization of the services of Junior Engineers engaged on casual basis in District Rural Development Agencies of the State, proceeded to direct that in the event, the cases of the petitioners have not been so considered under the scheme, their cases are now to be considered afresh in terms of the directions passed and till the process involved is complete, the present status of the petitioners would be maintained. 9. As noticed hereinabove, the cases of the petitioners were not considered under the provisions of the said scheme after the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2004, requiring the petitioners to approach this Court again by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8334/2005. 10. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2012, noticing the scheme brought into operation for the purpose of regularization of the services of Junior Engineers appointed on casual basis in the District Rural Development Agencies, prior to 04.03.1997, proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to deal with the cases of the petitioners (petitioner Nos. 2 & 5, therein) in accordance with the said scheme and consider their cases for regularization of their services in terms of the said scheme. The operative portion of the said order dated 19.01.2012, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “Thus, as far as the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are concerned, they are, admittedly, covered by the scheme, in question, and, hence, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 1, namely, Page No.# 6/7 Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and respondent No. 2, namely, Director of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, to deal with the cases of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 (except the case of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4) in accordance with the said scheme and consider their cases for regularization of their services in terms of the scheme. As far as petitioner Nos. 11 and 12, namely, Sri Amrit Borah and Md. Mozammil Hoque respectively, are concerned, as they are not covered by the scheme aforementioned, no direction, in the nature of mandamus, can be issued in their favour and it is, therefore, left to the State Government to take appropriate decision(s) in the matter as far as these two writ petitioners are concerned.” 11. The directions as passed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2012, as well as the earlier order dated 19.01.2004 passed in Civil Rule No. 1076/1998 has not been put to challenge by the State respondents and accordingly, the said decisions have attained its finality. 12. In view of the directions passed by this Court in the above two proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that a right has accrued to the petitioners for having their cases considered for regularization strictly in accordance with the scheme framed at the relevant point of time and also by applying the same yardstick as was applied in respect of similarly situated casual Junior Engineers working in District Rural Development Agencies and/or in Panchayat & Rural Development Department, who have since been regularized in their respective services. 13. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department; the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department and the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, to forthwith initiate steps to have the cases of the petitioners considered under the scheme so formulated in the year 1999, for regularization of the services of Junior Engineers appointed on casual, temporary, adhoc or on contractual basis in District Rural Development Agencies and Development Blocks in the State of Assam. Page No.# 7/7 14. Page No.# 7/7 14. While considering the cases of the petitioners, the above noted authorities shall apply the same very yardsticks to the petitioners as was applied in the cases of similarly situated Junior Engineers working on casual basis, whose cases were taken up for consideration and who have since been regularized in their services. The said exercise be initiated and concluded by the said authorities within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court. 15. It is clarified that the extension of the benefit of the case of Upen Das (supra) would not act as a barrier towards regularization of the services of the petitioners, inasmuch as, this Court has already concluded, hereinabove that a right for having their cases regularized had accrued to the petitioners prior to the passing of the directions in the case of Upen Das (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant