GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SANKAR DAS V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

GUWAHATI, India, March 1 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 29:

1. Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam as well as for the Treasury Officer, Rangia. Ms. Jonali Das, who is the Treasury Officer, Rangia is also present through the video conferencing link.

2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to pay the Petitioner the minimum scale of pay as provided to Grade-IV staff in the Treasury Office, Rangia Sub-Treasury on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.

3. It is very pertinent to take note of that the materials on record show that in the year 2009 and more particularly on 06.02.2009, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual worker on monthly basis with immediate effect against the sanctioned vacant post by the Treasury Officer, Rangia SubTreasury. Copies of the said order were also marked to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) as well as to the Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Assam.

4. It is very pertinent at this stage to take note of that the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Assam is the Superior Officer of the Treasury Officer.

5. The materials on record further show that the Petitioner thereupon has been continuously serving as would be seen from the certificates issued by the Treasury Officer. On account of non-payment of certain amounts, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.6,41,700/- as the arrears along with interest @9% per annum. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7696/2018. In the said writ petition, the stand which was taken by the learned counsel for the Finance Department was that the appointment of the Petitioner was a personal appointment made by the Treasury Officer inasmuch as, the Treasury Officer is not empowered to make any Grade-IV appointment.

6. Be that as it may, it was also contended on behalf of the Petitioner in the said proceedings that recommendations were also made by the Treasury Officer for budget allocation as well as for payment of the dues. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 11.02.2025 holding inter alia that the very appointment of the Petitioner on 06.02.2009 was an illegal appointment inasmuch as the Treasury Officer did not have the authority to appoint and with a further observation that the claims of the Petitioner should be made before the concerned Treasury officer as it was on his pleasure, the engagement appears to have been made. Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No.7696/2018 by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court being relevant are reproduced herein under:

"6. The claim of the petitioner is based on an order dated 06.02.2009 by which the petitioner was appointed as a casual worker on monthly wage basis against a sanctioned vacant post. The said order was issued by the Treasury Officer, Rangiya Sub- Treasury. Admittedly, the Treasury Officer did not have any power to make an appointment or engagement.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x3A0dUZxJiM0oEJvyWqNArg89jLJhdyvFV489NVV0%2FXB&caseno=WP(C)/7073/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010263762025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.