Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010200252022 2026:GAU-AS:8126 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6517/2022 SIEMNGUL HMAR AND 4 ORS. S/O- LATE HRANGLIENTHANG, R/O- VILL.- HUONVENG, HAFLONG, P.O. HAFLONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN- 788819. 2: GOJENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN S/O- LATE SANAT KR. BARMAN R/O- SILCHAR TARAPUR KARIMGANJ ROAD VIVEK SARANI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788003. 3: ABELSON SUCHEN S/O- LATE WILLINGSON RUPSI R/O- JATINGA P.O. JATINGA DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788819. 4: WENLEY MASSA C/O- LATE LAKHON SUCHIANG R/O- JATINGA P.O. JATINGA DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788819. 5: TIKARAM SHARMA S/O- LATE BOLARAM SHARMA R/O- VILL.- UPPER BAGETER SIBRAIPUR DIST. DIMA HASAO Page No.# 2/17 ASSAM PIN- 788819 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HILLS AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HILLS AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM HILLS AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. DILAJEE DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460. 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG P.O. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460. 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMA HASAO P.O. HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM Page No.# 3/17 PIN- 788819 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA,MS L HMAR,R K HAJONG Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. J K GOSWAMI,MS H TERANGPI (r-5),MR. B K BHAGAWATI (r-5),MS. M D BORAH (R-3),SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date :08.06.2026 Heard Mr. I H Saikia, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents and Mr. R Borpujari, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Finance, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 4. 2. The Petitioners, who were employees of the Assam Hills Area Development Corporation Ltd., have approached this Court, by way of instituting the present Writ Petition, praying for a direction upon the Respondent authorities, to release their arrears, after computing their pay, w.e.f 01.01.2006, in terms of the Assam Service (Revision of Pay) Rules 2010 and w.e.f 01.01.2006, in terms of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017. The Petitioners, herein, were serving in various Page No.# 4/17 posts in the Assam Hills Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., hereinafter, referred to as the Corporation. It is projected that the Corporation is an undertaking of the Government of Assam and is fully managed and controlled by the Government. After the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, was implemented in the State Government employees, the Petitioners and the other employees, working in the Corporation, at the relevant point of time, were continued to be paid their dues, in terms of the adoption made by the Corporation of the provisions of the 5th Assam Pay Commission. The benefits under the ROP Rules of 2010 and the ROP Rules of 2017, not being extended to the Petitioners, the Petitioners, along with other similarly situated persons, had approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 1435/2012. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2019, on considering the issues arising in the said Writ Petition, and also noticing the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, proceeded to dispose of the said Page No.# 5/17 Writ Petition, by observing that technically, the State Government may not be liable to extend financial support to the Corporation, but, in view of the financial difficulty faced by the Corporation, the Government in the Hills Department, as well as the Finance Department, may consider extending financial assistance to the extent possible. It was further observed that the Corporation shall also continue to pay the Petitioners, their current and arrear salaries, by devising a method, particularly to clear the arrear dues in a phased and expeditious manner. 4. From the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in its meeting held on 04.08.2016, had, upon a thorough discussion of the issue, decided to pay the revised scale of pay, on the basis of the 6th Pay Commission Report, without giving revised pay arrears to the employees and workers, subject, however, to the availability of administrative fund/surplus fund of income from various sources. It was further decided that the Revision of Pay scale, will be effective only for existing working employees of this Corporation, subject to the revenue position depending on Page No.# 6/17 income of sales, proceeds etc., when the management thinks fit and subject to the approval of the Government. It is further found that vide a notification dated 24.08.2012, on noticing the difficulty faced by State Level Public Enterprises in the State of Assam, in pay fixation in the revised scales of pay, had required all State Level Public Enterprises to submit their proposal for Pay Revision to the Finance Department through their Administrative Department. Thereafter, vide a notification dated 24.08.2012, the Government of Assam in the Finance (PRU) Department, had laid down the procedure to be followed for adoption of the pay scales, coming into force, in pursuance to the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, for its offices. Vide the said notification dated 24.08.2012, it was mandated that the Board of Directors of each State Level Public Enterprises, shall decide to adopt regarding Revision of Pay/Pay Scales, allowances and payment of arrear pay, as per provisions of the said Rules of 2010, after making a detailed examination of the financial involvement. It was further provided that the Pay Revision is to be allowed with the approval of the concerned Administrative Department, only after the Board of Directors agree that the Page No.# 7/17 concerned Enterprises has adequate financial resources to meet the expenditure for paying the revised pay, revised allowances and the arrear pay. It was further stipulated that before allowing the Pay Revision by the Administrative Department, each of the SLPEs, would be required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Administrative Department, indicating the exact number of post and number of employees, working against the sanctioned post. 5. The Petitioners, herein, have projected that although a procedure was laid down by the Government, in this connection, for payment of revised pay to the employees of the Respondent Corporation, the Board of Directors, having already adopted the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010, in its meeting held on 04.08.2016, the non-disbursal of the amount involved, to the Petitioners, had violated their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Petitioners have instituted the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr. I H Saikia, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has reiterated the facts noticed hereinabove, and submitted that the Page No.# 8/17 Board of Directors, having already adopted a resolution for Revision of the Pay and Allowances of the Officers and Employees of the Corporation, in its meeting held on 04.08.2016, this Court would be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to further process the matter and to take the issue to its logical conclusion. 7. It is submitted that all the Petitioners are now in the advance age and they are in dire need of money for making their ends meet. He submits that the Respondent Corporation, is contended to be making profit, as of now and accordingly, a decision, in the terms of the policy, laid down by the Government in the notification dated 24.08.2012, is mandated to be taken in the matter. 8. Per contra, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents submits that the Revision of Pay of the employees of the Corporation is a matter to be decided by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, after ascertaining the feasibility of the same. She submits that in the event, the Corporation has the ability to bear Page No.# 9/17 the additional expense coming into existence, on account of effecting Revision of Pay of its employees, the Corporation must meet the same, through its own resources. She, however, submits that the Corporation has already expressed its inability to make additional expenditure. Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents submits that under such circumstances, this Court would be pleased not to direct the Government to make provisions for the payment of the revised scale of pay of the Petitioner, either under the provisions of the 6th Assam Pay Commission or the 7th Assam Pay Commission. 9. Mr. R Borpujari, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Finance, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 4, submits that a detailed procedure, is already laid down for adoption of the Revision of Pay Rules, coming into force, from time to time, by the State Level Enterprises for its employees, inasmuch as, in the Revision of Pay Rules, a stipulation is made, to the effect that the same shall not apply, amongst others, to Officers and Staff of Public Undertakings of the Government of Assam, without Page No.# 10/17 express orders. 10. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. As noticed, hereinabove, the procedure, mandated to be followed for Revision of Pay, in establishments like the Respondent Corporation, was laid down by the Finance (Pay Research Unit), Department, vide a notification dated 24.08.2012. In terms of the said notification, a decision, at the first instance, is to be arrived at by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, after examining the feasibility of providing for revised scale of pay to its employees. Thereafter, the proposal is to be sent to the Administrative Department, for a further scrutiny. At this stage, in the event, the Administrative Department is of the view that the Corporation has adequate funds, at his disposal, to make the increased expenditure, coming into being, on account of revision of scale of pay of its employees, the Administrative Department can affirm the proposal, put forward by the Corporation concerned. However, it is stipulated that before granting of such permission, a Page No.# 11/17 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), is to be entered into, by the Administrative Department, with the Corporation. 12. In the case on hand, this Court finds that the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in its meeting held on 04.08.2016, in principle, had agreed to revise the scale of pay of its employees, in terms of the ROP Rules, 2010. However, on a close perusal of the said resolution, it is found by this Court that the same was made effective only for existing working employees, and the same was further made, subject to the revenue position, depending on the income of sale, proceeds etc. and also when the management deemed it fit after approval of the Government. 13. The perusal of the decision of the Board of Directors, as arrived at in its meeting held on 04.08.2016, this Court does not find a clear decision taken for Revision of Pay of the employees of the Corporation. Further, even if it is assumed, that the decision of revising the pay of the employees of the Corporation, was arrived at, this Court does not find that the same was further processed, in terms of the said notification Page No.# 12/17 dated 24.08.2012. Accordingly, it is found that the Corporation, considering its financial position, had not further proceeded to actually implement the revised scale of pay for its employees. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in this connection, had made a submission that the Corporation, being a State Government undertaking, this Court would direct the Respondent State, to provide for a grant to facilitate Revision of Pay of the employees. This Court finds that the said submission of the Petitioner to be not acceptable. The Respondent Corporation is an autonomous body and merely because the Government has a controlling share in the said Corporation, it cannot be held that the liability of the Corporation to pay its employees, their pay and allowances in the revised scale of pay, is also to be borne by the Government. 15. In support of the said conclusions, this Court would rely on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A K Bindal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this connection, in Paragraph 17 is Page No.# 13/17 extracted hereinbelow : “17. The legal position is that identity of the government company remains distinct from the Government. The government company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire shareholding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. It is also equally well settled that the employees of the government company are not civil servants and so are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution (Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director [(1989) 3 SCC 448 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 484 : AIR 1989 SC 1854] ). Since employees of government companies are not government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay scale, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. It appears that prior to issuance of the office memorandum dated 12-4-1993 the Government had been providing the necessary funds for the management of public sector enterprises which had been incurring losses. After the change in economic policy introduced in the early nineties, the Government took a decision that the public sector undertakings will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the Government will not provide any funds for the same. Such of the public sector enterprises (government companies) which had become sick and had been referred to BIFR, were obviously running on huge losses and did not have their own resources to meet the financial liability which would have been incurred by revision of pay scales. By the office Page No.# 14/17 memorandum dated 19-7-1995 the Government merely reiterated its earlier stand and issued a caution that till a decision was taken to revive the undertakings, no revision in pay scale should be allowed. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity, legal or constitutional in the two office memorandums which have been challenged in the writ petitions.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of A K Bindal (Supra), had further proceeded to consider, as to whether, under such circumstances, the right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in respect of the Petitioners, herein, stood violated. In this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had drawn the following conclusions : “18. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Venkataramani that on account of nonrevision of pay scales of the petitioners in the year 1992, there has been any violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The scope and content of this article has been expanded by judicial decisions. Right to life enshrined in this article means something more than survival or animal existence. It would include the right to live with human dignity. Payment of a very small subsistence allowance to an employee under suspension which would be wholly insufficient to sustain his living, was held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale [(1983) 3 SCC 387 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 391 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 667 : AIR 1983 SC 803] . Similarly, unfair conditions of labour in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [(1982) 3 SCC 235 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 275 : AIR 1982 SC 1473] . It has been held to embrace within its field the right to livelihood by means which are not illegal, Page No.# 15/17 immoral or opposed to public policy in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [(1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180] But to hold that mere non-revision of pay scale would also amount to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 would be stretching it too far and cannot be countenanced. Even under the industrial law, the view is that the workmen should get a minimum wage or a fair wage but not that their wages must be revised and enhanced periodically. It is true that on account of inflation there has been a general price rise but by that fact alone it is not possible to draw an inference that the salary currently being paid to them is wholly inadequate to lead a life with human dignity. What should be the salary structure to lead a “life with human dignity” is a difficult exercise and cannot be measured in absolute terms. It will depend upon the nature of duty and responsibility of the post, the requisite qualification and experience, working condition and a host of other factors. The salary structure of similarly placed persons working in other public sector undertakings may also be relevant. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that the salary which is currently being paid to them is so low that they are not able to maintain their living having regard to the post which they are holding. The observations made in paras 276 and 277 in Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213 : 1990 Supp (1) SCR 142] strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, should not be read out of its context. In the said case the Court was called upon to consider the constitutional validity of Regulation 9 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, which gave power to terminate the services of an employee after giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The termination of services of some of the employees on the ground that they were inefficient in their work by giving one month's notice was set aside by the High Court as in its opinion Regulation 9(b) gave absolute, unbridled and arbitrary powers to the management to terminate the services of any permanent or temporary employee and, therefore, the same was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was in this context that the aforesaid observations were made by one Hon'ble Judge in his separate opinion. The issue involved was not of revision of pay scale but Page No.# 16/17 that of termination of services which has an altogether different impact on an employee.” 17. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its said decision, had held that the economic viability of an industrial unit or the financial capacity of the employer, is to be taken into consideration in the matter of Revision of Pay scales of the employees of the Corporation. 18. In view of the conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A K Bindal (Supra) and on applying the same, to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that no right of the Petitioner has been infringed in the denial to them of the revised scale of pay, as employees of the Corporation. Such denial is found to have so occasioned, on account of financial conditions of the Corporation. 19. Accordingly, the claims made in the present Writ Petition, in the considered view of this Court, would not mandate an acceptance. 20. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court provides that in the event the Corporation, on improvement in Page No.# 17/17 their financial condition, decides to implement the Revision of Pay scales by adopting, either the provisions of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, and/or the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, with retrospective effect and in the event, it is found that the Petitioners, herein, were serving in the Corporation, on the date when the Revision of Pay rules, has been effected from the benefits, thereunder, be also granted to the Petitioners, herein, along with release of arrears of pay. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant