Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010038312018 2026:GAU-AS:9274 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1210/2018 JAGADISH DAS SENIOR ASSTT., OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D (ROADS), ASSAM, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781003 3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER PWRD BARAK VALLEY P.O. SILCHAR PIN-788001 4:SMT. LUCIA TERANGPI SR. ASSTT. OFFICE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS AND BUILDING) HILLS/ZONE DIPHU PIN-782460 Page No.# 2/15 5:BHARATI SAIKIA SR. ASSTT. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS) ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN-781003 6:HEMARI TIMUNG SR. ASSTT. OFFICE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS AND BUILDING) HILLS/ZONE DIPHU PIN-782460 7:UTPAL RONGPI SR. ASSTT. OFFICE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS AND BUILDING) HILLS/ZONE DIPHU PIN-782460 8:AMIT CHAKRABORTY SR. ASSTT. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS AND BUILDING) HILLS/ZONE DIPHU PIN-78246 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S NATH, MR G J SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P W D Page No.# 3/15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 25.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the seniority position assigned to him in the seniority list of Senior Assistants, working in the amalgamated establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) as on 14.11.2017. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to assign to him, his appropriate seniority position in the cadre of Senior Assistant of the amalgamated establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD, by reckoning the date of his promotion as Upper Division Assistant (UDA), in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed on 13.01.1989, as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and had joined in such capacity in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant and he had assumed the charge of the promotional post on 04.05.2005. The petitioner projects that the respondent authorities vide a communication dated 06.02.2017, proceeded to upgrade the existing establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Page No.# 4/15 Karimganj, to that of Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Barak Valley. One of the post of UDA, figuring in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, was upgraded to that of Superintendent (Directorate Level), while the other post of UDA was retained in the same cadre but was upgraded to that of Directorate Level. In pursuance of the said upgradation of the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, which also included the upgradation of the employees working, therein, the petitioner joined against his upgraded post in the Directorate Level establishment on 20.02.2017. The post of UDA held by the petitioner as created in the Directorate Level, was subsequently normalized by the respondent authorities. In the list of employees working in the newly created establishment of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, the name of the petitioner figures against the cadre of UDA (Senior Assistant). The Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, vide a communication dated 15.03.2017, intimated the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), that 02 (two) posts of UDA were upgraded vide the communication dated 06.02.2017, however one of the 02 posts was upgraded to that of Superintendent (Directorate Level) and the other posts was upgraded to UDA (Directorate Level). It was further highlighted, therein, that services of the incumbents holding the post prior to its upgradation were not upgraded. Accordingly, the Bio-data of the employees concerned, including the petitioner, came to be enclosed to the said communication with a request for their upgradation. It was also highlighted that the salary bills of the existing staff were pending since 20.02.2017. Accordingly, it was requested that Page No.# 5/15 budget be provided for the financial year 2017-2018, including the arrear salaries w.e.f 20.02.2017 and also for issuing necessary instruction for upgradation of services of the existing staff like UDA/LDA. The petitioner, thereafter, also submitted a representation for upgradation of his services. The petitioner vide his representation dated 24.03.2017, highlighted before the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, that 02 (two) posts of UDA figuring in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer of PWD, prior to the upgradation of the said establishment in pursuance to the creation of the establishment of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, one of the said post was upgraded to that of Superintendent and the other post was continued as UDA. The petitioner projected that as the upgraded post of Superintendent was lying vacant and he was allowed to hold the charge of the said post, prayed that he be posted as Superintendent, considering his service seniority as an UDA. The pay of the petitioner not being released after upgradation, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, vide communication dated 22.08.2017, placed the said matter before the Chief Engineer, PWRD, and requested to pass necessary modification order for the post of UDA or to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Superintendent against the vacant post available in the establishment and for release of his arrear salaries. The Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, again vide a communication dated 17.10.2017, approached the Government in the PWD (Roads), submitting a proposal for upgradation of the post of Senior Assistant to Superintendent and highlighting, therein, that the post which has been upgraded as Superintendent was earlier held by the petitioner. Accordingly, it was requested that the Page No.# 6/15 petitioner be considered for attachment against the post of Superintendent. It is in the above background that the petitioner was transferred and posted to the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWRD, Assam, Guwahati. In the said order, the petitioner was designated as Senior Assistant (UDA), in the Office of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley. The petitioner on being released by the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, joined against his transferred post in the establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads). As the petitioner was so continuing in the establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), a gradation list of incumbents working in the amalgamated establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), against the post of Senior Assistant, came to be published and, therein, the name of the petitioner was so placed at serial no.59, by reckoning that the petitioner was upgraded to the Directorate Level post from a District Level post only vide communication dated 06.02.2017. Being aggrieved by the seniority position as assigned to him in the said seniority list, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel, for the petitioner by reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner was working as a UDA since the date of his promotion i.e. w.e.f, 04.05.2005, albeit in the district establishment i.e. the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj. He submits that on upgradation of the post held by him to that of the Directorate Level on the creation of the establishment Page No.# 7/15 of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, he continued to discharge similar nature of duties. 5. Mr. S. Nath, submits that the establishment of Superintendent Engineer, being upgraded along with the post and the staff, therein, the establishment of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, being so created, the staff on their such upgradation should be assigned their respective seniority, by reckoning the length of service rendered by them in the post that they had so held at the time of upgradation of their services. It is submitted that the petitioner having held the post of UDA since 2005, his seniority on upgradation of his services and placement in a Directorate Level establishment, is to be so assigned by reckoning his date of promotion as UDA i.e. w.e.f. 04.05.2005. It is submitted by Mr. S. Nath that the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 04.05.2005, till the date of his upgradation cannot be wiped away. 6. Mr. S. Nath, submits that the upgradation of the services of the petitioner to a Directorate Level establishment cannot be deemed to be a promotion, requiring the fixation of his seniority w.e.f. the date of such promotion. He submits that on upgradation of the services of the petitioner, he having continued to discharge similar nature of duties and having shouldered similar responsibility, the services rendered by the petitioner must be so held to be in continuation of the services rendered by him, before his such upgradation, in the same post in a District Level Establishment. Accordingly, it is submitted that for fixation of seniority in the upgraded establishment, the services rendered Page No.# 8/15 by the petitioner as UDA/Senior Assistant, in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, (District Level Establishment), must mandatorily be reckoned. 7. In support of his submissions Mr. S. Nath, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Madhavan and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1987 (4) SCC 566; S.I. Ruplal & Anr. Vs. Lieutenant Governor Delhi, reported in 2000 (1) SCC 644; and D. P. Das, Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2011 8 SCC 115. 8. In the above premises, Mr. S. Nath, submits that the impugned gradation list would mandate interference with a further direction upon the respondent authorities to assign seniority position to the petitioner on his upgradation to the Directorate Level Establishment by reckoning the period of service rendered by him, in the District Level Establishment, as Upper Division Assistant (UDA). 9. Per contra Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner during the period he was so posted in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, was holding a post in the District establishment and his services were covered by the provisions of the “Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967”. Mr. R. Dhar, submits on the upgradation of the establishment of the Superintending Engineer to that of Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley, the establishment now came within the purview of the amalgamated Page No.# 9/15 establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWRD. He further submits that with the upgradation of the Establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, to that of Additional Chief Engineer, the services of the incumbents holding post in regular basis in the establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, Karimganj, B.R.C. Circle, Karimganj, also came to be so upgraded. He submits that on the upgradation being so effected, the services of the incumbents so upgraded would be now covered by the provisions of the “Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973”. He submits that there being 02 (two) distinct services existing, one that of the District Level and the another of the Directorate Level, he submits that on the upgradation of the services and placement of an incumbent in a Directorate Level establishment, his seniority in the Directorate establishment shall be permissible to be so assigned from the date he had assumed charge and/or his post was so upgraded from that of the District Level to that of the Directorate Level. Accordingly, Mr. Dhar, submits that the petitioner services having being upgraded only w.e.f. 06.02.2017, his seniority in the amalgamated establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD, against the cadre of Senior Assistant, was so assigned by reckoning the date of his such upgradation and he was accordingly, assigned the seniority position at serial no.59, in the impugned gradation list. Mr. Dhar, submits that in view of the above factual position, existing in the matter, the petitioner for the purpose of assignment of his seniority in the Directorate establishment cannot be permitted to reckon the services rendered by him in a District Level Establishment prior to his Page No.# 10/15 upgradation to that of a Directorate Level. 10. Mr. R. Dhar, further submits that as a matter of policy, seniority of all incumbents whose services were upgraded from a district level establishment to a Directorate Level Establishment were being assigned below the incumbents who figured in the cadre concerned in the Directorate Level Establishment. He submits that in addition to there being a difference in pay authorized to ministerial post having the same nomenclature, figuring in the district and Directorate Level Establishments, an incumbent in the Directorate Level Establishment is required to discharge duties of more onerous nature and shoulder higher responsibilities. 11. In the above premises, Mr. R. Dhar, submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition shall not mandate an acceptance. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The establishment of the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Karimganj, B.R.C Circle, Karimganj, which was a District Level Establishment, was upgraded to the Directorate Level Establishment, in terms of a policy decision of the Government as reflected from a communication dated 06.02.2017, brought on record by the petitioner. On upgradation of the said Establishment, the post figuring, therein, also came to be upgraded to that of the Directorate Level. Out of the 02 (two) posts of Senior Assistant available, when the establishment was a District Level Establishment, Page No.# 11/15 01 (one) post was upgraded as Superintendent (Directorate Level) and the other post was so upgraded as UDA (Directorate Level) 14. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner had also joined the Directorate Level Establishment as an UDA/Senior Assistant. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from the Directorate Level Establishment of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Barak Valley, to the Directorate Level Establishment of Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, vide an order dated 14.11.2017. The seniority position of the employees working in the amalgamated Directorate Level Establishment of the PWD (Roads) Department, is so determined State wide. Accordingly, a gradation list was published of the incumbents in the cadre of Senior Assistant of the amalgamated staffs of the Establishment of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Chief Engineer PWD (Border Roads), Chief Engineer, PWD, N.H. (Works), Chief Engineer PWD (ARIASP) & (RIDF), Assam, Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Eastern Zone, Dibrugarh, Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Tezpur Zone, Tezpur, Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Hills Zone, Diphu, as well as the Establishment of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barak Valley, Silchar. The petitioner, therein, was assigned seniority position, at serial no.59, by reckoning the date he had come to occupy the post of Senior Assistant in a Directorate Level Establishment. 15. The petitioner in the present proceedings has contended that from a perusal of the date of joining of the Senior Assistants, as placed in the said gradation list, it would be apparent that the petitioner was the senior most amongst them, having joined as Senior Assistant on 04.05.2005. He submits that Page No.# 12/15 the upgradation of his services to a Directorate Level Establishment, being effected, the respondents were required to fix his seniority in the Directorate Level Establishment, against the post of Senior Assistant, by reckoning the date on which the petitioner had assumed the charge of the post of Senior Assistant in the District Level Establishment. 16. This Court finds that the service conditions of the employees of the District Level Establishments are governed by the provisions of the “Assam Ministerial District Establishment Services Rules, 1967”, while the service conditions of the Directorate Level Establishments, are so governed by the provisions of “Assam Directorate (Establishment) Ministerial Services Rules, 1973”. 17. This Court also finds that a Senior Assistant working in a Directorate Level Establishment, is required to discharge more onerous duties and also shoulder higher responsibilities than that of a Senior Assistant, working in a District Level Establishment. This Court also finds that the status of the post of a Senior Assistant in a Directorate Level Establishment is higher than that of a Senior Assistant working in a District Level Establishment. The nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered, being clearly higher in respect of a Senior Assistant, posted in the Directorate Level Establishment than that of a Senior Assistant posted in a District Level Establishment, the same are distinct and separate entities. Further the ministerial staff in the Directorate Level Establishment as well as those working in the District Level Establishment are governed by 02 (two) separate Rules and accordingly, it is an admitted position Page No.# 13/15 that there are 02 (two) different services existing, one at the Directorate Level and other at the District Level. Although, mere authorization of higher scale of pay in the upgraded post, would not normally mandate the incumbent joining the upgraded post to also be deprived of his seniority in the upgraded post, by ignoring the length of service rendered by him against a similar post but this Court having found that the nature of duties and the responsibilities shouldered by a Senior Assistant in a Directorate Level Establishment to also be higher than that shouldered by a Senior Assistant in the District Level Establishment, no error is found in assignment of seniority position to such employees, like the petitioner, in the Directorate Level Establishment, below the incumbents already figuring in the cadre of Senior Assistant, therein. 18. From the affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court finds that the employees upgraded from a District Level Establishment to a Directorate Level Establishment in the PWD (Roads), over the period of time were being assigned seniority position in the upgraded Establishment only w.e.f the date of their joining against in the Directorate Level Establishment. The said practice is found to be in vogue for a considerable period of time. 19. This Court finds that the decision to upgrade the Establishment of the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Karimganj, B.R.C Circle, Karimganj, to that of a Directorate Level Establishment, was a policy decision and the respondent authorities by reckoning the nature of duties attached to the post of Senior Assistant in the Directorate Establishment, as well as the powers exercised by the employees holding the post, the salary of the post, had as a matter of policy Page No.# 14/15 assigned seniority positions to the upgraded employees in the Directorate Level Establishment, from the date of his/her joining against the said post. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the manner in which the upgraded employees were being assigned seniority positions on their upgradation to a Directorate level establishment, is not erroneous and would not mandate any interference more so when no malafide and/or discrimination has been alleged by the petitioner in the present writ proceeding, in the matter of assigning to him seniority position in the Directorate Level Establishment on his joining, therein. It is also noticed by this Court, that on joining by the petitioner in the Directorate Level Establishment, the chance of his promotion may be adversely effected, but this cannot be a ground for setting aside the upgradation so effected as well as the seniority position assigned to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant in the Directorate Level Establishment. 20. It is a settled position of law that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the service conditions. 21. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the criteria for assignment of seniority position to ministerial employees working in District Level Establishment upon their upgradation to a Directorate Level Establishment in the PWD (Roads), is being so assigned, over the years, by applying a uniform criteria and accordingly, the manner in which such category of employees have been assigned seniority in Directorate Level Establishment, in the considered view of this Court would mandate an acceptance. Page No.# 15/15 22. In view of the conclusion drawn by this Court, hereinabove, this Court finds that the petitioner was assigned his seniority in the Directorate Level establishment, upon upgradation of his services, by following the criteria applied in the Department in this connection and no error is found, therein. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 23. This Court has carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances as involved in the present matter, the said decisions would not advance the case of the petitioner and accordingly, a detailed discussion on the said decisions is not being made in the present order. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant