| |
CDJ 2026 Assam HC 074
|
| Case No : WP. (C) of 2243 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE |
| Parties : Sunil Muchahary & Others Versus The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner & Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Dispur & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: A. Boro, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Gogoi, SC-Forest, A. Chaliha, SC-Finance, N.R. Sarma, SC-BTC. |
| Date of Judgment : 04-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
Comparative Citation:
2026 GAU-AS 1403,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Government Notification dated 08.03.2019
2. Catch Words:
minimum pay scale, service provider, casual worker, verification, direction, forest protection, wildlife protection
3. Summary:
The petitioners, members of an NGO, seek the minimum pay scale granted to similarly situated workers under the judgment in *State of Assam v. Upen Das* and a 2019 Government Notification. They have been engaged as service providers/casual workers for forest and wildlife protection since 2003‑2007. The respondents argue that the petitioners were appointed temporarily without due process and thus are not entitled to the minimum pay scale, but concede verification may be required if they have served continuously for over ten years. The Court finds no dispute regarding their engagement and, relying on *Upen Das* and *Jagjit Singh*, directs the respondents to verify the petitioners’ continuous service and, if confirmed, to grant them the minimum pay scale. The verification exercise must be completed within four months.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Judgment & Order (Oral):
1. Heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. NR Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 5 to 10.
2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide the minimum pay scale in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das reported in 2020 (5) GLT 605 and the Government Notification dated 08.03.2019.
3. The petitioners, 65 in numbers, are the Members of an NGO, namely, Manas Maozigendri Ecotourism Society of Khamardwisa, Lwkhibazar in the district of Baksa, a registered Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been engaged as a Service Provider / Casual Worker for protection of Forest & Wildlife in different ranges from 2003 to 2007 under Manas Tiger Reserved Forest in the district of Baksa due to shortage of man power in the Department and the petitioners are dedicatedly rendering their services since their appointments on a meager wages.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the BTC Authorities has considered for providing the minimum pay scales to some of the similarly situated Service Provider / Casual Worker while the cases of the petitioners has been left out, which resulted in deprivation of the petitioner to receive the minimum pay scale.
6. Mr. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of minimum pay scale in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra) and Government Notification dated 08.03.2019. He submits that there is no dispute as regards the engagement of the petitioners as they have been rendering their services continuously since their engagements till date with a meager wages and similarly situated persons have been granted minimum scale of pay in terms of the direction passed in the case of Upen Das (supra). He, therefore, submits that the respondents may be directed to provide the minimum scale of pay to the petitioners in terms of the judgment and order passed in the case of Upen Das (supra) and Government Notification dated 08.03.2019.
7. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, submits that the petitioners were only engaged as a Service Provider on a temporary basis but not on a substantive vacancies nor any selection process was followed. He submits that since the petitioners were appointed as Service Provider without following the due process of law nor on substantive vacancies, they are not entitled to minimum scale of pay. However, he submits that in view of the direction of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), if the petitioners are working continuously for more than 10 years, even though not in a sanctioned post, the authorities may be directed to verify and grant the benefit of minimum scale of pay in accordance with law.
8. Having considered that there is no dispute as regards the engagement of the petitioners and their continuation in services as Service Provider / Casual Worker for protection of Forest & Wildlife in different ranges under Manas Tiger Reserved Forest in the district of Baksa and considering the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, I am of the view that the petitioners appear to be entitled to be provided minimum scale of pay as they have been engaged by the authorities and allowed to continue as a Service Provider / Casual Worker for protection of Forest & Wildlife in different ranges under Manas Tiger Reserved Forest since their initial engagement in the year 2003-2007. Thus, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioners have been engaged and allowed to continue in the their services as Service Provider / Casual Worker and if found engaged and continued to serve in such capacities, the respondent authorities would consider granting the benefit of minimum scale of pay to the petitioners in terms of the law laid down in the cases of Upen Das (supra) as well as Jagjit Singh (supra). It is ordered accordingly.
9. The aforesaid exercise, as directed hereinabove, be completed within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
|
| |
