Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010120822016 2026:GAU-AS:4352 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/101/2017 RAJIB HAZARIKA S/O JATIN HAZARIKA R/O SOLENGI P.O. ALENGI SATRA P.S. GOHPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM Pand R.D. DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEV. ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GHY-37 ASSAM 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEV. AGENCY SONITPUR DIST- SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM 4:FINANCE DEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/7 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR.R SALOI Advocate for : MR A CHALIHA SC(R-4) appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 24/03/2026 Heard Ms. S Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner in the present writ petition has raised a grievance with regard to the non-consideration of his case for regularization as Junior Engineer in terms of the scheme formulated by the authorities in this connection. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as a Junior Engineer on fixed pay basis and posted at Pub-Choiduar Development Block, vide an order dated 27.02.1997, issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Sonitpur. The petitioner joined his such services and the same was being extended from time to time. The services of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2004, noticing the issues arising, therein, proceeded Page No.# 3/7 to dispose of the said writ petition by requiring the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner was reinstated in his services vide issuance of an order dated 12.03.1998. As the petitioner was so continuing, the services of the petitioner not being considered for regularization in terms of the scheme holding the field, the petitioner, herein, again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4264/2011. The persons similarly situated like the petitioner and who were the co-petitioners in Civil Rule Case No. 1076/1998 had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8334/2005, praying for regularization of their services in terms of the scheme in place. A Co-ordinate Bench of 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, therein, 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, therein, in accordance with the said scheme and consider their cases for regularization of their services in terms of the scheme. The writ petition instituted by the petitioner, being WP(C)No. 4264/2011 came to be disposed of vide an order dated 19.01.2012 by applying the observations and directions as made by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2012 in WP(C) No. 8334/2005. It is to be noted that the said directions having been issued by this Court, the case of the petitioner, till date, has not been considered under the provisions of the said scheme for regularization of his services. Page No.# 4/7 4. Ms. S Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner, herein, is presently continuing to discharge his duties in the capacity of Junior Engineer on fixed pay basis under the Commissioner of Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, there is a positive direction issued not once, but twice, in favour of the petitioner by this Court, the respondent authorities have been sitting over the matter, thereby, causing grave injustice to the petitioner. She submits that the cases of persons similarly situated like the petitioner has already been taken up for consideration under the scheme and those persons have already been regularized in their services. However, the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter. In the above premises, Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to complete the process of regularization of the services of the petitioner 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 petitioner, herein. 5. Per contra, Mr. A K Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department, at the outset, has submitted that as to how the case of the petitioner has been processed for regularization of his 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 2017. Mr. Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department, however, submits that he has instructions to the effect that the petitioner has been 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 petitioner in the present writ petition is not entitled to any Page No.# 5/7 further relief, inasmuch as, no regularization of the services of the petitioner 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. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The claim of the petitioner is for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularization of his 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 petitioner had initially approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 1076/1998, being aggrieved by the termination of his 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 case of the petitioner has not been so considered under the scheme, his case would now be considered afresh in terms of the directions passed and till the process involved is complete, the status of the petitioner would be maintained. 9. 9. As noticed hereinabove, the case of the petitioner was not considered under the provisions of the said scheme after the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2004, requiring the petitioner to approach this Court again by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4264/2011. 10. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2012, following its decision in WP(C) No. 8334/2005 proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, by observing that the observation and directions passed in WP(C) No. 8334/2005 would also apply to the case of the petitioner, herein. It is to be noted that this Court in WP(C) No. 8334/2005, noticing the scheme brought Page No.# 6/7 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, 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, passed in WP(C) No. 8334/2005, 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, 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 petitioner for having his case 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 Page No.# 7/7 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 case of the petitioner 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. 14. 14. While considering the case of the petitioner, the above noted authorities shall apply the same very yardsticks to the petitioner 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 petitioner, inasmuch as, this Court has already concluded, hereinabove, that a right for having his services regularized had accrued to the petitioner 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