Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1162 (GAU)

Jakir Hussain v. State of Assam

2018-08-07

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. M Khan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6. 2. Considering the nature of grievance projected by the writ petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Guard (Chowkidar) in the office of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Salchapra ICDS project, Cachar district, Silchar on 03.05.1995. The petitioner was given a lumpsum remuneration of Rs. 900/- per month. Subsequently, the same was enhanced to Rs. 2100/- per month. It is the petitioner's case that the Government of Assam has been enhancing the fixed pay admissible to daily wage/casual employees/ fixed pay employees working under the Government establishment from time to time. Vide Office Memorandum dated 14.03.2013, the fixed salary of the aforesaid category of employees working on whole time basis was enhanced to Rs. 6000/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.2013. Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2018, the fixed salary of the employees concerned was again enhanced to Rs. 9000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2018. However, the petitioner has only been paid monthly remuneration of Rs. 2100/- till date which has prompted him to come before this Court. 4. Mr. M Khan, the learned counsel by referring to Annexure-4 of the writ petition submits that the respondent No.7 has in fact intimated the respondent No.4 with all the details of casual employees working under the establishment of the respondent No.7. The petitioner also on his part has been submitting representation from time to time but however, his monthly remuneration has not been enhanced till date. The learned counsel further refers to the Judgment and Order rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 08.06.2017 in Writ Appeal No.45 of 2014 and contends that this Court had directed the respondent authorities concerned to pay minimum of the pay scale to all its casual employees working since the last more than 10 years w.e.f. 01.08.2017. He submits that as the petitioner has been working since the year 1995, his case is also covered by the said Judgment and order. He submits that as the petitioner has been working since the year 1995, his case is also covered by the said Judgment and order. He therefore, submits that the respondent authorities concerned be directed to give the petitioner his monthly remuneration at an enhanced rate applicable to similarly situated other persons or the monthly remuneration in the minimum pay scale as directed by this Court in the Writ Appeal referred to above. 5. Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel appearing for the Social Welfare Department submits that he is yet to receive instructions in the matter and that if the monthly remuneration enhanced by the Finance Department is found applicable to the case of the petitioner after examination by Social Welfare Department, he would surely be given the same. He further submits that since the CDPO concerned had already forwarded the details of the casual employees working under its establishment, it is clear that the matter is under examination by the Department concerned. Therefore, the outcome of such consideration may be awaited. 6. Mr. P Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the Finance Department submits that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.2 on 01.06.2018 clarifying the stand of the Finance Department. By referring to the affidavit- in-opposition, he submits that the Finance Department does not enhance the salary of casual employees on individual basis but enhances the same as a whole from time to time. He submits that it is true that the Finance Department had enhanced the fixed pay of casual employee to Rs. 9000/- per month vide Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2018. But however it is for the Department concerned to initiate steps for implementation of the same for its employees. In the instant case, it would be the Social Welfare Department to take steps for implementing the enhancement provided by the Office Memorandum. He further submits that in compliance of the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.45 of 2014, the matter regarding payment of minimum scale of pay of Mustar Roll/Casual employees/fixed pay workers etc. working for the last more than 10 years is under active consideration by the Finance Department. Therefore, the grievance projected by the petitioner in this regard is only premature. 7. working for the last more than 10 years is under active consideration by the Finance Department. Therefore, the grievance projected by the petitioner in this regard is only premature. 7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. From what has been projected by the parties, the only issue that requires consideration is whether the monthly remuneration of the petitioner from Rs. 2100/- should be enhanced to the amount fixed by the Finance Department or he should be given the minimum pay scale as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. It may be noticed that even prior to the direction passed by the Division Bench on 08.06.2017, respondent No. 7 had already initiated the process of sending detailed particulars of employees working under its establishment way back on 31.10.2016. If that is the case, coupled with the fact that the Finance Department has been issuing Office Memorandum from time to time for enhancement of the monthly remuneration of casual employees employed under the various establishment under the State Government and that the Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2018 is the latest enhancement, the question of petitioner's entitlement in my considered opinion should not be kept pending and should be considered and decided by the respondent authorities concerned in terms of the guidelines or Office Memorandum laid down in this regard. Accordingly, the respondent authorities concerned, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to consider enhancement of the monthly remuneration of the writ petitioner in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2018 and also the direction of the Division Bench dated 08.06.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No.45 of 2014 within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not fixed any amount of remuneration which is payable to the petitioner but has left it to the authority concerned to take a decision in this regard without further delay. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.