Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 249 (GAU)

Nani Bunyi, D/O Nani Koyang v. Union Of India

2022-03-09

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : As common question of law is involved in these 2 (two) writ petitions and as asked by the learned Advocates of both sides, it is proposed to dispose of the same by this common judgment & order, at this admission stage. 2. The first writ petition No. WP(C)/414(AP)/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by 342 petitioners, and the second writ petition No. WP(C)/412(AP)/ 2019, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by 19 petitioners for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release honorarium for a period of 25 months due to them. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitions are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioners in WP(C)/414(AP)/2019 and WP(C)/412(AP)/2019 were selected and appointed as ‘Preraks’ and ‘Block Coordinators’, respectively, on contractual basis in the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, under centrally sponsored scheme, i.e. “SAAKSHAR BAHARAT MISSION” programme with an honorarium @ Rs. 3,000/-& Rs. 6,000/-per month, respectively. The said programme was extended from time to time with a direction to submit their willingness letter and joining report to the authority so as to continue in their respective posts. The said programme was extended till 31.03.2018 and, thereafter, no extension was made. It is stated that they have not been paid monthly honorarium since the year 2015 for last 25 months though they have rendered their services till 31.03.2018 since the year 2015. The petitioners have also approached the concerned authority by filing a representation, but the same failed to yield any result. Hence, they approached this Court by filing present writ petitions. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 & 6 filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petitions. It is stated that the Saakshar Bharat Programme was launched on 08th September, 2009 and extended till 31.03.2019 and the Central Government had released the required fund to the State Government and the honorarium to the Preraks were to be paid from the fund CE (recurring) Component of the programme and against the total approved budget of Rs. 62,97,71,059/-, the Ministry/Government of India has sanctioned the entire amount to the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the period ending on 31.03.2018 till end of the programme. The honorarium to the Block Coordinators were to be paid from the Component of MME and Rs. 62,97,71,059/-, the Ministry/Government of India has sanctioned the entire amount to the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the period ending on 31.03.2018 till end of the programme. The honorarium to the Block Coordinators were to be paid from the Component of MME and Rs. 3,21,64,810/- was earmarked and also released under the MME Component.” 5. Heard Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. 6. Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have rendered their services as Preraks and Block Coordinators since the year 2011 till the end of the programme in the year 2018, @ Rs. 3,000/-& Rs. 6,000/-per month, respectively, as honorarium, but for the last 25 months, they have not been paid the honorarium. It is further submitted that the petitioners are poor persons hailing from far flung areas of the State and due to non-payment of their honorarium, they have been suffering a lot. Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that in connection with a similar subject matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a writ petition, being WP(C)/564(AP)/2018, vide order dated 10.05.2019, has directed the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to pay the monthly honorarium to the petitioners of that petition within a period of 3 (three) months and, accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that similar direction may be issued to the respondent authorities here in these petitions also. 7. Per contra, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5, submits that he has no objection in granting relief to the present writ petitioners like the petitioners of WP(C)/564(AP)/2018, granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2019, provided the respondent authorities may be allowed to check the status of the petitioners and their performance report and only thereafter to make payment of honorarium to the petitioners. 8. Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not objected to the submission so advanced by Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is to be mentioned here that respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 have not submitted their affidavit-in-opposition. 9. 8. Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not objected to the submission so advanced by Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is to be mentioned here that respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 have not submitted their affidavit-in-opposition. 9. In view of the above and in view of the submissions of learned Advocates of the parties and the documents placed on record, these writ petitions stand disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, to make payment of honorarium @ Rs. 3,000/-& Rs. 6,000/-per month, respectively, to the petitioners, herein, who have served as ‘Preraks’ and ‘Block Coordinators’ in the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for the 25 months after ascertaining their status as well as their performance report from the authority concerned. The above exercise has to be carried out within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The parties have to bear their own costs.