Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010231782017 2026:GAU-AS:8806 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/18/2017 INDRAJIT DUTTA CHOUDHURY and 4 ORS. S/O- LT. DR. RATISHMOY DUTTA CHOUDHURY, COLLEGE ROAD, SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. 2: ON THE DEATH OF JAWHARLAL CHAKRABORTY HIS LEGAL HEIR- SMT MITALI CHAKRABORTY W/O- LT. JAWHARLAL CHAKRABORTY SHIBBARI ROAD SILCHAR DIST. - CACHAR TARAPUR ASSAM. 3: PRABIR KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY S/O- LT. RASAMOY ROY CHOUDHURY PADMANAGOR BILPAR SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. 4: GOURANGA CHANDRA SARKAR S/O- LT. NAKUL CHANDRA SARKAR N. S. AVENUE SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. 5: PROJESH DEB S/O- LT. PROMODE CHANDRA DEB N. S. AVENUE SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6. 2:THE SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY IT'S CHAIRMAN SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 3:THE CHAIRMAN SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD SILCHAR DIST. - CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SARKAR, MR. J SARMAH,MS S BHOWMICK,MR.N C DAS,MR.S DEY,MR.T ROY Advocate for the Respondent : MS. N MODI, MR. H. SARMA, ADDL. SR. GA, ASSAM,GA, ASSAM,MR.C SHARMA(R- 2&3),MR.S DUTTA(R- 2&3),MR.SIDHANT DUTTA(R- 2&3),MR P NAYAK (SC, FINANCE, R-4) Linked Case : WP(C)/5618/2017 INDRAJIT DUTTA CHOUDHURY and 3 ORS. S/O- LATE DR. RATISHMOY DUTTA CHOUDHURY R/O- H NO. 220D COLLEGE ROAD SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR PIN- 788004 2: PRABIR KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE RASAMOY ROY CHOUDHURY R/O- PADMA NAGAR Page No.# 3/10 BILPAR SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 3: GAURANGA CHANDRA SARKAR S/O- LATE NAKUL CHANDRA SARKAR R/O- H NO. 30 SUKANTA SARANI NS AVENUE SILCHAR- 788005 DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 4: PROJESH DEB S/O- LATE PROMODE CHANDRA DEB R/O- H NO. 7 MOHANAM BRATA SARANI NS AVENUE SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788005 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM RUKMINIGAON BYE LANE NO.2 GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ASSAM MUNICIPAL ACT 1956 AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 4:THE CHAIRMAN Page No.# 4/10 SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O- SILCHAR- 788001 DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. ------------ Advocate for : MSB DEVI Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 18.06.2026 Both the writ petitions have been analogously heard and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioners are retired employees of the Silchar Municipal Board (presently Silchar Municipal Corporation) and they had retired from service in the period from 2010 till March 2013. The Board vide a Resolution dated 29.08.2011 had resolved to give the benefit of the Revision of Pay Rules (ROP) 2010 to all the staff. It was also resolved that such benefits be calculated from 01.01.2006. However, such benefit was not given to the petitioners and in the meantime, they had retired. Accordingly, they had instituted the first writ petition i.e. WP(C)/4675/2016 in which, there was an order dated 08.08.2016 to consider and dispose of the representation. 3. The stand of the Board, as would reflect from the communication dated 18.05.2016 is that such benefit would be given as and when funds are made Page No.# 5/10 available to the Board. The petitioners had instituted a second writ petition i.e. WP(C)/6030/2016 which was also disposed of vide an order dated 03.10.2016 directing for consideration of the representation. The Board vide a communication dated 31.10.2016 had made their position clear that if and when the Government makes the funds available, the payment can be made. As the benefits were not given, the present writ petitions have been filed wherein the contesting respondents have also filed their affidavits-in-opposition. 4. I have heard Shri J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam; Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhant Dutta, learned counsel for the Silchar Municipal Corporation and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 5. It may be mentioned that when the writ petition was instituted the nomenclature was Silchar Municipal Board which was subsequently made a Corporation. 6. Shri Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, by drawing the attention of this Court to the Resolution dated 29.08.2011 has submitted that once such Resolution was taken, it was incumbent upon the Board to give the benefit to the petitioners. He has highlighted that so far as the subsequent employees are concerned, such benefit has been given and only the petitioners who had retired before March 2013 have been left out. He has submitted that though the Board/Corporation is required to generate their own funds, there is a provision for seeking grants from the State. He has submitted that in fact, the benefit to the subsequent employees have been made on the basis of grants provided by the State. He accordingly submits that there cannot be any discriminatory treatment so far as the petitioners are concerned vis a vis the Page No.# 6/10 employees, who were serving at the time of retirement of the petitioners. 7. Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate on the other hand has submitted that the salaries and other expenditures of the Board/Corporation have to be generated by its own as there are various mechanism of revenue generation. He has however submitted that at times, grant is given by the State which has to be properly justified. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 1 on 02.02.2023 wherein the provisions of the Constitution namely, Articles 243 (Y) and 243 (I) have been dealt with. He has submitted that the Board/Corporation is an autonomous body and has to generate its funds and on meeting the pre requisites, the State may provide for grants-in-aid. 8. Shri Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department while endorsing the submissions of the learned State Counsel has contended that the Resolution itself appear to have been taken without any proper application of mind. He has clarified that the benefits of ROP would not be per se applicable to the employees of the Board/Corporation and if at all the same is adopted, the same has to be done by doing an extensive exercise more particularly, with regard to the fund position. 9. Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation has candidly submitted that it is not in dispute that Resolution No. 8 was indeed adopted on 29.08.2011. He has however submitted that it is not clear from the records as to under what circumstance such Resolution was adopted. He has submitted that the fund position of the Corporation is not sound and even the monthly salaries are not being able to be released on time. So far as the submissions made that certain employees who were serving have been given the benefit, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that grants-in-aid was provided by the Page No.# 7/10 Government on 01.10.2014, that too, for a period of 6 months whereafter such grants-in-aid was not provided. He has reiterated that though the benefit has been given to certain employees, those are also done in a most irregular manner as the fund position of the Corporation is unstable and poor. 10. From the materials available on record, it is not in dispute that Resolution No. 8 was adopted by the Board/Corporation on 29.08.2011. For ready reference the said Resolution No. 8 is extracted herein below: “Resolution No.8. The Government of Assam vide its Notification NO.FPC-85/2009/1 dated 04-02- 2010 reconstituted the pay structure of the employees of the State. The employees of the Silchar Municipal Board have been enjoying the Scale and allowances as per State Government employees since 1974. The "Drain Labourers" "Sweepers” of the Silchar Municipal Board, though have been enjoying the pay scale but still it is not at par with the scale of pay and allowances as per Govt. employees for which there arose discrimination in the case of reconstitution of the pay scale. In view of keeping parity for the all Municipal employees of the state a "study committee" has been constituted. The Government of Assam, following amendment of section 50 of the Assam Municipal Act is going to constitute "staffing pattern" and related by laws that will be binding of the part of Silchar Municipal Board. Abiding by the direction of the aforesaid "staffing pattern" and "study committee" the Silchar Municipal Board decided /resolves to pay the allowances of the Silchar Municipal employees as per the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 it is also resolved that the drain labourers and Sweepers working under Silchar Municipal Board will get the minimum scale of pay of Rs.4560-15000 along with grade pay of Rs.1500/- per month.” 11. The Resolution would reveal that the employees of the Board were Page No.# 8/10 enjoining the scales and allowance of the State Government employees since 1974 and accordingly the benefits of the ROP 2010 were sought to be extended. While this Court is not raising any issue with regard to the bona fide of the said Resolution adopting the ROP of 2010, it is not clear as to how and from where the funds would be generated to be paid to the employees in terms of the said Resolution. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention the Constitutional provision connected to the issue. Article 243 (Y) is with regard to a Finance Commission which is constituted under Article 243 (I) which would also review the financial position of the Municipalities and make suitable recommendations. Such recommendations would also be on the aspect of providing grants-in-aid to the Municipalities from the consolidated funds of the State. As noted above, the Finance Commission is constituted under Article 243 (I). For ready reference both the Articles are extracted herein below: “243 I. Constitution of Finance Commissions to review financial position (1) The Governor of a State shall, as soon as may be within one year from the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, and thereafter at the expiration of every fifth year, constitute a Finance Commission to review the financial position of the Panchayats and to make recommendations to the Governor as to— (a) the principles which should govern— (i) the distribution between the State and the Panchayats of the net proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees leviable by the State, which may be ided between them under this Part and the allocation between the Panchayats at all levels of their respective shares of such proceeds; (ii) the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees which may be assigned to, or appropriated by, the Panchayats; (iii) the grants-in-aid to the Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the State; Page No.# 9/10 (b) the measures needed to improve the financial position of the Panchayats; (c) any other matter referred to the Finance Commission by the Governor in the interests of sound finance of the Panchayats. (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the composition of the Commission, the qualifications which shall be requisite for appointment as members thereof and the manner in which they shall be selected. (3) The Commission shall determine their procedure and shall have such powers in the performance of their functions as the Legislature of the State may, by law, confer on them, (4) The Governor shall cause every recommendation made by the Commission under this article together with an explanatory memorandum as to the action taken thereon to be laid before the Legislature of the State. 243 Y. Finance Commission ― (1) The Finance Commission constituted under article 243-I shall also review the financial position of the Municipalities and make recommendations to the Governor as to — (a) the principles which should govern— (i) the distribution between the State and the Municipalities of the net proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees leviable by the State, which may be divided between them under this Part and the allocation between the Municipalities at all levels of their respective shares of such proceeds; (ii) the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees which may be assigned to, or appropriated by, the Municipalities; (iii) the grants-in-aid to the Municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the State; (b) the measures needed to improve the financial position of the Municipalities; (c) any other matter referred to the Finance Commission by the Governor in the interests of sound finance of the Municipalities. (2) The Governor shall cause every recommendation made by the Commission Page No.# 10/10 under this article together with an explanatory memorandum as to the action taken thereon to be laid before the Legislature of the State.” 13. As would be clear from the aforesaid provisions, the Commission would have the power to recommend to the State for providing grants-in-aid to the Municipalities from the consolidating funds of the State. Though the act of adopting the ROP 2010 vide the Resolution dated 29.10.2011 cannot be said to have vested an indefeasible right to the petitioners, taking into consideration that certain employees have been indeed given the benefit of such adoption, interest of justice would require that the Board/Corporation would write to the appropriate authority for providing grants-in-aid to the Corporation so as to take care of the situation which has arisen out of the Resolution dated 29.08.2011. 14. The Silchar Municipal Corporation is accordingly directed to place the entire matter before the appropriate authority along with the relevant information informing the requirement of funds which would be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. 15. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant