Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010011032015 2026:GAU-AS:5408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1767/2015 PRANABJYOTI BARUAH and 4 ORS S/O SRI BALURAM BARUA CO. SULTANA RAHMAN ASHRAM ROAD, ULUBARI, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM. 2: SRI LANKESWAR SOUD S/O SRI KANAK SAUD C/O TAURAM SAHARIA QUARTER NO. 33/3 DISPUR CAPITAL COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: SRI DIGARU KR. DAS S/O PRADIP KR. DAS BLOCK NO. 14 QUARTER NO. 7 DISPUR CAPITAL COMPLEX DISPUR G UWAHATI-06 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4: SRI ASWINI BEZBARUAH S/O SRI NAGEN BARUA CO. NAGEN BEZBARUAH HOUSE NO. 32 BY LANE NO. 5 BAKRAPARA KRISHNA NAGAR CHARI ALI P.O. BASISTHA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 5: MRS. DAMAYANTI SAIKIA W/O MR. NAGENDRA NATH TALUKDAR HOUSE NO. 88 DAKHIN GAON KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATION NAZARAT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECRETARIATE ADMINISTRATION NAZARAT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY FINANCE EC-III DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATION NAZARAT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H A AHMED, MR.A U AHMED,MRK BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, SC, SAD,GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 3/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Secretariat Administration (Nazarat) Department (SAD), appearing for the respondents. 2. The present matter was heard on 02.04.2026 and is being listed today for delivery of orders. 3. The petitioners in the present writ petition have presented a challenge to an endorsement made by the Finance (EC-III) Department dated 15.12.2014, towards denying enhanced remuneration to the petitioners, who were engaged as daily wage workers, and have prayed for direction for payment of enhanced wages to them w.e.f. January 2015. 4. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers during the period w.e.f. 2005 to 2008 in the Assam Secretariat by the Secretariat Administration (Nazarat) Department (SAD). The engagement of the petitioners were on daily wages and it is further projected that initially the petitioners were being paid their respective remuneration in cash and thereafter w.e.f. the month of October 2013, such remuneration was being credited in their respective bank accounts. The petitioners being in service as daily wage workers, the Secretariat Administration Department had incorporated their names in a list of daily wage workers and forwarded the same to the Finance (EC-III) Department, seeking concurrence for enhancement of the wages of the persons who were so included in the said list of daily wage workers, including the petitioners, herein. The petitioners in the said list were incorporated at serial no.60 to 64. The Finance (EC-III) Page No.# 4/10 Department, on perusal of the said proposal had conveyed its no objection for enhancement of the remuneration of 59 numbers of daily wage workers who were included at serial no.1 to 59 of the list so forwarded by the Secretariat Administration Department. With regard to the petitioners who were included at serial no.60 to 64 in the said list, the Finance (EC-III) Department had refused to grant concurrence for enhancement of their daily wages by opining that their names were not found to be included in the original list of daily wage workers, which had received the concurrence of the Department vide its endorsement dated 10.02.2011, for their engagment. The petitioners being aggrieved had instituted the present proceedings with the reliefs as noticed, hereinabove. 5. Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that although the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage workers, their names were not included in the list of daily wage workers engaged by the Secretariat Administration Department, in the Assam Secretariat, however, subsequently, 5 (five) of such daily wage workers working in the Secretariat Administration Department, having been appointed in the regular cadre against sanctioned vacant post, the petitioners, herein, were accommodated against the said 5 (five) daily wage workers. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, that although in the list of 72 workers as forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department for concurrence towards their engagement, the names of the petitioners, herein, do not figure, he submits that the said list was, however, modified subsequently, and the names of the petitioners came to be included in the said list. He submits that the names of the petitioners were so included in place of persons who were earlier engaged as daily wage workers with the concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department. He submits that the Finance (EC-III) Department, having concurred for engagement of daily wage workers, that too to the extent of 72 (seventy two) numbers and the petitioners being within the said 72 (seventy two) numbers of approved daily Page No.# 5/10 wage workers, only on the ground that their names were not included in the earlier list which had received the concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their due wages. Mr. K. Bhuyan, has further submitted that the petitioners in view of the developments taking place in the matter after the endorsement dated 15.12.2014, was made by the Finance (EC-III) Department are not being released their due wages although the petitioners are continuing to be engaged for various works in the Assam Secretariat. Mr. K. Bhuyan, by referring to the list of 64 (sixty four) persons as forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department and in pursuance to which the impugned endorsement dated 15.12.2014 was so issued, submits that the persons whose names figured at serial no.42, 53 to 59, also did not find mention in the original list of 72 (seventy two) daily wage workers which was concurred to by the Finance (EC-III) Department, however, the enhancement of wages in respect of the said daily wage workers, who were incorporated at serial no.42 and 53 to 59 of the list of daily wage workers, was not objected by the Finance (EC-III) Department on the said count. In the above premises Mr. Bhuyan, submits that the claims made by the petitioners, in the present writ petition would mandate acceptance by this Court. 6. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Secretariat Administration Department, has submitted that the petitioners, herein, were engaged as daily wage workers, however, their such engagement did not have the approval of the Finance Department as was mandated. The petitioners were so engaged in view of the exigencies of service arising in the matter and no engagement orders were issued to the petitioners in this connection. It is submitted that the petitioners initially were being released their remuneration in cash, however, w.e.f. October 2013, such remuneration of the petitioners were Page No.# 6/10 being so credited in their bank account. It is also submitted that after the endorsement dated 15.12.2014, was made by the Finance (EC-III) Department, the matter was further examined by the respondents in the Secretariat Administration Department and it being found that the engagement of the petitioners did not have the concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department, they were not permitted to continue in their respective services. It is further projected that the petitioners have not been paid any remuneration after December 2014. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners, herein, are not working under the General Administration (Nazarat) Department. With regard to the submissions made by Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that while the Finance (EC-III) Department had refused to grant no objection for enhancement of wages of the petitioners, herein, such enhancement was found to have been accorded in respect of the daily wage workers who were included at serial no.42, 53 to 59 of the list of 64 (sixty four) daily wage workers so forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department, it is submitted that although the said persons were found to have been incorporated in the list, they are also not found to be working in the said Department. Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents had placed on record copies of the relevant notes as contained in File No.S(N)/102/2005/Pt. and File No. S(N)/48/2012. In the above premises the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. At the outset it is to be noted that the engagement of daily wage Page No.# 7/10 workers in the Assam Secretariat, as is evident from the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as from perusal of the relevant noting made in the files as furnished to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, is required to be so made with prior concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department. It is seen that the Secretariat Administration Department had vide an endorsement dated 19.01.2011, forwarded the file to the Finance (EC-III) Department, requesting for concurrence to create 120 (one hundred twenty) numbers of Grade-IV post on daily wage basis. The said proposal was examined by the Finance (EC-III) Department and vide endorsement dated 10.02.2011, no objection for engaging 72 (seventy two) numbers of daily wage workers, in terms of the list of daily wage workers as forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department, was granted. A list of 72 (seventy two) daily wage workers, whose engagement was approved by the Finance (EC-III) Department is available on record and therein, the names of the petitioners, herein, do not figure. In pursuance to the said endorsement made by the endorsement dated 10.02.2011, Secretariat Administration Department, had proceeded to issue an order dated 21.09.2011, engaging 72 numbers of persons as daily wage labourers in the Assam Secretariat. The order dated 21.09.2011 also contains the names of the daily wage workers who were being so engaged and the names of the petitioners are not included, therein. Thereafter, it is seen that the Secretariat Administration Department, had again moved to the Finance Department for enhancement of wage of daily wage workers engaged in the Assam Secretariat. A list of 64 (sixty four) numbers of daily wage workers, was so forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department for the purpose. In the said list of 64 daily wage workers as forwarded, the names of the petitioners, herein, have been incorporated at serial no.60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 respectively. It is this list that was considered by the Finance (EC-III) Department vide its endorsement dated 15.12.2014. 9. The above discussion would bring to the forefront that the initial Page No.# 8/10 engagement of the petitioners, herein, was so effected without the concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department. It not being disputed that any engagement on daily wage basis in the Assam Secretariat is mandatorily required to be so done with prior concurrence of the Finance (EC-III) Department, the engagement of the petitioners being found to have been so effected on daily wage basis without the prior concurrence of the Finance Department, the rejection of proposal submitted in this respect for enhancement of their daily wages by the Finance (EC-III) Department in the considered view of this Court was not erroneous. 10. Having drawn the said conclusion this Court would now examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the persons whose names figured at serial no.42 and 53 to 59 in the list of daily wage workers forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department for enhancement of their wages, also did not find mention in the list of 72 (seventy two) persons as approved for engagement on daily wage basis by the Finance (EC-III) Department. This Court on a perusal of the said list of 72 (seventy two) daily wage workers whose engagement was approved by the Finance (EC-III) Department, does not find the names of the persons who were so included at serial no.42 and 53 to 59, in the list so forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department, for enhancement of their wages. Accordingly, the said persons are found to be similarly situated like the petitioners, herein. However, the Finance (EC-III) Department had proceeded to accord its no objection for enhancement of the said daily wage workers, although, their names were not found to be included in the list of 72 daily wage workers whose engagement was approved by the Finance (EC-III) Department. However, the said aspect of the matter need not be detain in this Court, inasmuch as, it has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said daily wage workers whose names figured at serial no.42 and 53 to 59 in the list of daily wage workers as forwarded to the Finance (EC-III) Department for enhancement of their wages, are no longer working in the Assam Page No.# 9/10 Secretariat. Further, the petitioners, herein, cannot base their claim for being granted enhanced wages, basing on such wages being so enhanced in respect of the persons who also were engaged, dehors the procedure so mandated for engagement of daily wage workers in the Assam Secretariat. It is to be noted that out of the 72 (seventy two) numbers of daily wage workers whose engagement was approved by the Finance (EC-III) Department as on date only 47 (forty seven) numbers of persons are stated to be working in the Department. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court also finds that after December 2014, there is no material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioners, herein, had continued to render their services in the Assam Secretariat and they were being released their wages either by cash or in their respective bank accounts. It is the categorical contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after December 2014, the petitioners were no longer found to be working in the Secretariat. The said position is also apparent from the Office Notes as placed on record before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein, the decision to delete names of the petitioners from the list of 64 (sixty four) numbers of daily wage workers is found to be available. The said noting also reveals that the petitioners, herein, were never issued any engagement order and accordingly, authorities had deemed it fit and proper to not issue any release orders to the petitioners and the only action taken was to delete their names from list of 64 daily wage workers which was prepared for forwarding to the Finance (EC-III) Department for enhancement of wages of such workers included in the said list. The petitioners accordingly were discontinued from their respective engagement on daily wage workers in the Assam Secretariat. 12. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, have not urged any cogent ground, requiring this Page No.# 10/10 Court to direct the respondent authorities to release to the petitioners wages at an enhanced rate more particularly when it has not been demonstrated that the petitioners under due authority had continued to discharge their duties in the Secretariat Administration Department as daily wage workers, after December 2014 and/or January 2015. Accordingly, the claims made by the petitioners in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 13. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant