Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 159 (GAU)

Jaidul Islam v. State of Assam

2004-03-04

RANJAN GOGOI

body2004
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. The 6 (six) petitioners before this Court are casual employees of the Agriculture department of the State of Assam, who are presently on a fixed pay of Rs.1800 per month. The petitioners may, therefore, be conveniently described as fixed pay casual employees. There are a large number of similarly situated fixed pay casual employees presently working in the State. 2. The grievance projected in the writ petition is that the fixed pay of casual employees, from time to time, have been revised/increased and such fixed pay been pegged to the minimum of the scale pay of regular Grade-IV employees. In other words, what has been contended is that with each revision of the pay scale of the regular Grade-IV employees of the State, following the recommendation of the Pay Commission and consequential Revision of Pay Rules, the fixed pay of casual employees has also been raised to the level of the minimum of the regular scale of pay of Grade-IV employees. Materials have been laid before the Court to contend that the earlier revision of fixed pay to Rs.900 per month as well as Rs.1440 per month corresponds to the minimum of the pay scale of Grade-IV employees as prevailing at the relevant point of time. According to the petitioners, after the recommendation of the 1994 Pay Commission, the ROP Rules of 1998 were enacted and though under the aforesaid ROP Rules of 1998, the minimum pay in the regular scale of Grade-IV employees has been fixed at Rs.2450, there has been no corresponding hike in the level of the fixed pay of the casual employees. Instead, what has been done is that such fixed pay has been enhanced from Rs.1440 to Rs.1800. It is on the aforesaid broad basis that the intervention of this Court has been sought for so as to enable the writ petitioners to receive higher emoluments corresponding to the minimum of the scale of pay of regular Grade-IV employees. 3. The State has filed its affidavit opposing the claims made by the writ petitioners therein it has been primarily contended that the fixed pay of the casual employees had been increased to Rs.1800 from Rs.1440 following the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 1994. 3. The State has filed its affidavit opposing the claims made by the writ petitioners therein it has been primarily contended that the fixed pay of the casual employees had been increased to Rs.1800 from Rs.1440 following the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 1994. To ascertain whether the Pay Commission had embraced the cases of casual employees on fixed pay within the ambit of its recommendation, this Court desired the learned counsels for the parties to place on record the aforesaid recommendations of the Pay Commission. The said recommendations have now been placed before the Court and a perusal thereof would go to show that the Pay Commission did not make any recommendations in respect of the fixed pay casual employees. The ROP Rules, 1998 which has also been placed before the Court indicates that the fixed pay casual employees of the State are outside the purview of the aforesaid Rules and in fact, under Rule 12 of the ROP Rules, 1998, as in the case of the predecessor Rules, a power has been vested in the Governor to fix the pay of employees not covered by the ROP Rules. It is perhaps in exercise of the aforesaid powers under Rule 12 of the ROP Rules that from time to time, office memorandums have been issued in the name of the Governor revising the fixed pay of casual employees including the revision effected to the level of Rs.1800. 4. A perusal of the report of the 1994 Pay Commission as well as the ROP Rules 1998, would amply reveal that the ground stated by the State in the affidavit filed for raising the fixed pay of casual employees to Rs.1800 per month is not borne out by the records. The Pay Commission not having made any recommendation in so far as the fixed pay casual employees are concerned, the grounds stated to the basis for the impugned action is wholly non-existent. If that be so, this Court will have no other alternative but to reach the conclusion that the exercise performed by the State in fixing the fixed pay of the casual employees at Rs.1800 per month is an exercise undertaken and completed without any reasonable basis and/or ground, When the grounds stated to be the basis of the Governmental action is found to be non-existent by the Court, such a conclusion has to be inevitably made. 5. 5. The finding recorded above, however, would not be determinative of the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the minimum of the time scale of pay of regular Grade-IV employees. Whether the determination of the fixed pay of casual employees at the level of the minimum of the time scale of pay of regular Grade-IV employees was a co-incidence or by accident or conscious design and intention, is something that is not disclosed by the record. Fixation of pay is essentially a function of the employer who is to be assisted in such matters by the experts. In ordering for a particular pay, fixed or in the time scale, regard must be had to a wide variety of facts and circumstances, of which the employer must be acknowledged to be the best judge. The role of the Court in such matters must be understood to be limited; fixation of a particular pay or a scale of pay to a class of employees will normally be examined by Court from the standpoint of Article 14 of the Constitution and perhaps, if a case is made out, from the standpoint of Article 21 of the Constitution also. 6. Taking into account all such facts as recorded above, I am of the considered view that the matter should be remitted to the State Government to receive due consideration of the competent authority of the State who will now proceed to fix/re-fix the pay of the fixed pay casual employees. As the exercise that the State will now have to undertake may not be possible to confine to the cases of the petitioners alone as there would be a large number of similarly situated employees, this Court is of the further view that a liberal time frame of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, should be granted to the State to complete the exercise. 7. The writ petition shall stand answered in terms of the above directions.