Heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Personnel Department. 2. This case was heard on 17-03-2015 and today is fixed for delivery of order. Accordingly, judgment is dictated in the open Court. 3. By jointly filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the four petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to regularize their service. 4. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 5. Petitioners are serving as panchayat employees in different Panchayats and Mahkuma Parishad (as it then existed) in the district of Jorhat. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Tax Collector in the Kamalabari Gaon Panchayat on 02-11-1992. Petitioner No.2 was appointed on 04-11-1992 as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Office of Sriram Gaon Panchayat. Petitioner No.3 was appointed on 04-03-1993 as LDA in the Majuli Mahkuma Parishad and petitioner No.4 was appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Office of Lohit Gaon Panchayat on 15-06-1992. 6. All the petitioners were engaged on casual basis and they are working as such till date continuously and without any break. 7. Government of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department had created a number of non-gazetted posts including 1484 posts of Tax Collector, 1332 posts of Peon-cum-Chowkidar etc. But those posts were not filled up. Respondents decided to regularize the service of the petitioners and in this connection, process was initiated on 09-12-1993. In the letter of the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development (now re-designated as Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development) dated 08-12-2002, it was stated that in respect of Gaon Panchayats, as against the sanctioned posts of 1092 Tax Collector, only 952 posts were filled up with 140 vacancies; likewise, against the 615 sanctioned posts of Peon-cum-Chowkidar, only 445 posts were filled up and 170 posts were vacant. There were similar vacancies, though lesser in number, in respect of Anchalik Panchayats. The Director expressed the difficulties faced by the Panchayats due to non-availability of adequate staff. 8. The Government thereafter requested the Director to furnish the total number of LDAs, Tax Collectors, Peon-cum-Chowkidars, etc. who were appointed prior to 01-04-1993 in different Gaon Panchayats/Anchalik Panchayats and working against sanctioned vacant posts for the purpose of their regularization. Such communications/correspondences have continued since then. 9. 8. The Government thereafter requested the Director to furnish the total number of LDAs, Tax Collectors, Peon-cum-Chowkidars, etc. who were appointed prior to 01-04-1993 in different Gaon Panchayats/Anchalik Panchayats and working against sanctioned vacant posts for the purpose of their regularization. Such communications/correspondences have continued since then. 9. According to the petitioners, their case for regularization/ provincialisation was approved by the Government in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department which had the concurrence of the State Level Empowered Committee. According to them, this would be in evident in File No. PDA 9/2001/53. It is further stated that the proposal contained in the aforesaid file is in the process of finalization. Finance Department has concurred to the proposal for regularization of the services of 39 Muster Roll Workers engaged prior to 01-04-1993 in the Panchayats against the existing vacancies in Grade III and Grade IV. In the list of 39 Muster Roll Workers short-listed for the purpose of regularization, petitioner No.1 is at Sl. No.1, petitioner No.2 is at Sl.No.25, petitioner No.3 is at Sl. No.31 and petitioner No.4 is at Sl.No.30 but till date no decision has been taken. This has compelled the petitioners to file the present writ petition. 10. Respondent No.4 has file an affidavit through the Joint Director. It is stated that Government of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department had issued letter dated 25-01-2012 approving payment of fixed monthly wages to 1812 numbers of casual workers engaged in different Panchayati Raj Institutions. It was stated that 1081 numbers of casual workers who were engaged prior to 01-04-1993 and 731 numbers of casual workers who were engaged after 01-04-1993 upto 31-03-2006 would be paid fixed monthly wages @ Rs.4500/- per month. Petitioners were included in the list of 1812 casual workers short-listed for the purpose of conferring fixed monthly wages @ Rs.4500/- per month. In fact they have been paid the above amount since 25-01-2012. As per sanction letter of the Finance (Economic Affairs) Department dated 18-03-2013, names of the petitioners are included in the list of beneficiaries under Jorhat district. 11. Other respondents have not filed affidavit. 12. Petitioners have filed reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. In their reply affidavit, petitioners have contended that by virtue of their long engagement, a right has accrued to them for provincialisation of their service under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999. 11. Other respondents have not filed affidavit. 12. Petitioners have filed reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. In their reply affidavit, petitioners have contended that by virtue of their long engagement, a right has accrued to them for provincialisation of their service under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999. By paying Rs.4500/- per month to the petitioners, the State has not done any favour to the petitioners, rather the petitioners have been discriminated against and deprived of the benefit of regularization and/or provincialisation of service. Statements made in the writ petition pertaining to File No.9/2001/53 have been reiterated. 13. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have rendered service as casual workers in the Panchayats continuously and without any break for more than 20 years. In fact, petitioners have completed more than 20 years of continuous service in their present capacity. Their continuation in casual employment is without the aid or assistance of any order of the Court or Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the embargo imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka -Vs- Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioners. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:- 1. (2014) 4 SCC 583 (Amarendra Kr. Mahapatra -Vs- State of Orissa). 2. (2014) 13 SCC 264 (Yashwant Arjun More -Vs- State of Maharashtra). 3. (2014) 13 SCC 268 (State of Maharashtra -Vs- Sanjay Bhalchandra Umbrajkar). He has also referred to the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 to contend that service of the petitioners are required to be provincialised. 14. Learned State Counsel Mr. Deka on the other hand refers to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and submits that the State has taken a decision to pay fixed wages @ Rs.4500/- per month to the petitioners which they have availed of. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State is oblivious to the plight of the petitioners. It is however contended that in view of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) claim for their regularization would not be maintainable. 15. Mr. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Personnel Department submits that Personnel Department has no role to play in the dispute raised by the petitioners. 16. Ms. It is however contended that in view of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) claim for their regularization would not be maintainable. 15. Mr. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Personnel Department submits that Personnel Department has no role to play in the dispute raised by the petitioners. 16. Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department while supporting the stand of the learned State Counsel, submits that Finance (Establishment) Department has recently issued an office memorandum dated 19-01-2015 revising the monthly fixed pay of the casual employees and bungalow peons. 17. Submissions made have been considered. 18. Basic facts are not disputed. State has not disputed that petitioners are in casual employment in different Panchayati Raj Institutions for more than 20 years now at a stretch. It is not disputed that petitioners are continuing as casual employees till date without any break. In recognition of their long and continuous service and in terms of the communication dated 25-01-2012 of the Government of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, petitioners are being paid fixed wages @ Rs.4,500/- per month since 25-01-2012. 19. Having noticed the basic undisputed facts, it would be apposite to briefly examine the relevant legal aspects in the context of the petitioners claim. 20. Panchayats have been recognized and accepted as a model of local self-government at the grass-root level. By the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 Part-IX was inserted in the Constitution of India. Part- IX deals with Panchayats. By this Amendment Act, Panchayats have been given constitutional recognition and constitutional status as units of local self government. Elaborate provisions have been inserted in the Constitution to provide democratic local self government institutions in the rural areas. Article 243-B provides that there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of Part-IX. Duration of Panchayats is 5 years which are elected bodies. Under Article 243-G, the Legislature of the State is authorized to make law endowing the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of local self-government. Article 243-H also mandates the Legislature of a State to authorize Panchayats to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits as may be specified. Article 243-H also mandates the Legislature of a State to authorize Panchayats to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits as may be specified. It also provides for constitution of Funds for crediting of moneys received by or on behalf of the Panchayats and also for the withdrawal of such moneys therefrom. Constitution of Finance Commission to review the financial position of the Panchayats and to make recommendations is provided in Article 243-I. 21. Therefore, it is clearly evident that not only the Panchayats have received constitutional recognition and status, they have been mandated with a vast range of activities to ensure that there is devolution of powers in the real sense in that governance reaches the last person at the grass roots. 22. Following the constitutional mandate as above, the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has been enacted establishing a three tier system of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Assam with Gaon Panchayats at the village level, Anchalik Panchayats at the intermediate level and Zila Parishads at the district level. Powers, functions and duties of the Panchayats at each of the three levels are elaborately dealt with in the Act, which may however not be necessary to be gone into in the present proceeding. 23. Suffice it to say that in view of the admittedly large array of functions of the Panchayats which are statutorily and constitutionally recognized and mandated, it is necessary that the Panchayats must be made functional and effective. Therefore, Panchayats must have adequate staff and infrastructure to ensure that they can perform and discharge the duties assigned to them. In the absence of adequate manpower and infrastructure it will not be possible on the part of the Panchayats to discharge their statutory and constitutional obligations. 24. It is for this purpose that the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 has been enacted to provincialise the services of the employees working in the Panchayats at all levels established under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The objective of the Provincialisation Act is to bring the serving employees of the Panchayats under the control of the State Government so that they are conferred with the status of Government employees. With their services secure, the employees can devote themselves fully in the working of the Panchayats. The objective of the Provincialisation Act is to bring the serving employees of the Panchayats under the control of the State Government so that they are conferred with the status of Government employees. With their services secure, the employees can devote themselves fully in the working of the Panchayats. The purpose of the Provincialisation Act as noticed above is thus intended to make the Panchayati Raj Institutions functioning in the State of Assam more meaningful and effective. 25. From the documents placed on record, particularly the letter dated 08-12-2000 which is a letter written by the Director, Panchayat and Rural Development (since re-designated as Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development) addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, it is seen that though a number of posts were created and sanctioned for the Panchayats, even those were found to be inadequate in comparison to the requirement. But more worrisome is that even from amongst the sanctioned posts a large number of posts have remained vacant. This is certainly not a satisfactory situation. In the absence of adequate staff and infrastructure, it would be impossible for the Panchayats to discharge their constitutional and statutory functions which in turn will adversely impact local self government, a constitutional objective. 26. It is in the light of the above provisions, both statutory and constitutional, that the claim of the petitioners is required to be considered. 27. State has come up with the plea that while regularization is not possible, considering the genuine grievance of the petitioners, it has provided fixed wages @ Rs.4500/- per month to the petitioners. 28. Question for consideration is whether such a measure in the light of the above discussion can be said to be just, fair and adequate ? 29. Part IV of the Constitution deals with Directive Principles of State Policy. Under Article 39 of the Constitution, which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the State must secure that the citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Similarly, Article 42 provides that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work for its citizens. Similarly, Article 42 provides that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work for its citizens. Article 40 recommends to the State to take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. This Directive Principle has now found its full play in Part IX of the Constitution. Organization of village panchayats is now no longer a matter which can be said to be not justiciable being a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 30. It is seen that the Finance (Estt.-A) Department has issued office memorandum dated 19-01-2015 revising the monthly fixed pay of the fixed pay casual employees and monthly consolidated pay of bungalow peons from the existing rates of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively. Those who had put in less than 10 years of such service as on 01-04-2014 are being paid Rs.6,500/- per month; those who had put in more than 10 years but less than 20 years as on 01-04-2014 are being paid Rs.6,750/- per month and lastly, those who had put in more than 20 years of service as on 01-04-2014 are being paid Rs.7,000/- per month. When the State fixes the monthly fixed pay of fixed pay casual employees and such other categories of employees, it is necessary that the same should not only be reasonable but there should be some uniformity in the fixation of such fixed pay. It is certainly not desirable that within one state there should be variation or disparity in the fixation of fixed pay of casual employees as in the case of the office memorandum dated 19-01-2015 whereby the fixed pay of certain categories of casual employees has been revised from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, though even this amount may not be adequate in today's context, whereas as per the communication of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department dated 25-01-2012 certain categories of casual employees working in the Panchayats are being paid only Rs.4500/- per month. Therefore, the State may consider to make the fixed pay of the casual employees uniform and also to enhance the fixed pay provided to such category of employees by taking into consideration the fixed pay provided to such employees in the other states as well. Therefore, the State may consider to make the fixed pay of the casual employees uniform and also to enhance the fixed pay provided to such category of employees by taking into consideration the fixed pay provided to such employees in the other states as well. However, since this is a matter concerning the finances of the State, at this stage, Court would not like to issue any positive direction in this regard. But certainly Court is of the view that this is a matter which requires a re-think on the part of the Finance Department as well as all other administrative departments of the State. 31. Coming back to the main prayer of the petitioners, petitioners have categorically stated that their claim for regularization/provincialisation has received approval of various departments at various stages and the same is now in the process of finalisation in file No.PDA 9/2001/53. This statement of the petitioners has not been controverted or denied by the respondents. It has also not been stated by respondent No.4 in his affidavit whether the petitioners are working against any sanctioned posts or not. Allowing the petitioners to continue in service as casual employees for more than 20 years at a stretch and thereafter providing them fixed monthly wages @ Rs.4,500/- is certainly not a fair treatment extended to the petitioners. As already noticed above, the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 has been enacted specifically to provincialise the services of employees working in the Panchayats at all levels. As discussed above, the purpose of this Act is to strengthen and make the Panchayats more effective so that they can discharge their constitutional duties. 32. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners have been duly considered. Learned State Counsel has not been able to show anything as to why the services of the petitioners should not be provincialised in terms of the aforesaid Act. 33. Having regard to the above and considering all aspects of the matter, respondents, more particularly respondent No.1, is directed to finally decide the case of the petitioners as processed in File No.PDA 9/2001/53, keeping in view the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 and the observations made above. 34. Let the said decision be taken within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 35. 34. Let the said decision be taken within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 35. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to