Biren Chandra Baruah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors.

Court
Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010200682017

2026:GAU-AS:12630
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5232/2017
BIREN CHANDRA BARUAH
S/O- LATE GOBIN CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O- BARUAGAON, P.O- BARUA
BAMMUN GAON, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
5:THE REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ASSAM
GOVT OF ASSAM

Page No.# 2/14
GUWAHATI
6:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.
BARUABAMUN GAON
C/O- OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
GOLAGHAT
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.H DAS, MR.G UZIR,MR.M SAIKIA,MR.S M BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A KALITA(SC, INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE),MRSA VERMA,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, CO-OP.,MR.B AHMED

:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE


Date on which judgment is reserved : 13.08.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.09.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)


Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.
Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent, and Mr. G.
Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Co-operation Department.

Page No.# 3/14

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 22.09.2016,
passed by the Official Liquidator, Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited,
Baruabamun Gaon, Golaghat, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment
of differential amount on the basis of Assam Government R.O.P., 1998 was
rejected. The petitioner prays for calculation of the amount claims to be due to
him towards unpaid wages and VRS benefits on the basis of the wage/pay
structure prevailing at the time of VRS and other allowances in accordance with
th
the 5 Pay Commission and also for extending the benefits granted by this
Court vide judgment dated 03.01.2014 in WP(C) No. 4355/2010.
3. The petitioner was an employee of Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills
Limited, Baruabamun Gaon, Golaghat (in short, “the Mill”). The Mill stopped
production on 31.05.1996 and was thereafter taken over by the State
Government through the Co-operation Department. As the dues of the
employees of the Mill remained unpaid, the petitioner along with others
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1930/2008.
4. The Mill is a cooperative society registered under the Assam Co-operative
Societies Act, 1949. It was leased to a private party, namely, Brahmaputra Sugar
Mill Ltd., in the year 1992. After the Mill stopped production and the private
party abandoned the Mill, the lease was cancelled in the year 1997 and a Board
of Management was constituted. The Government of Assam thereafter
introduced a revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the employees of
the State Level Public Enterprises on 15.02.2006, under which VRS benefits
were extended to the employees of the Mill. The registration of the Mill was
subsequently cancelled pursuant to a Cabinet decision on 22.03.2010.

Page No.# 4/14
5. By judgment and order dated 08.08.2008, passed in WP(C) No.
1930/2008, this Court directed the Principal Secretary, Co-operation
Department, Government of Assam, to take a formal decision for closure of the
Mill and thereafter to initiate the process for settlement of the dues of the
employees by treating them in a manner similar to the employees of other
closed PSUs and provided that if not fructified, writ petition would be revived. As
the directions were not complied with, the said writ petition was subsequently
revived.
6. After revival of the aforesaid writ petition, the State Government
sanctioned certain amounts towards payment of VRS benefits to the employees
of the Mill. However, the petitioner claimed that the wages and VRS benefits
were required to be calculated on the basis of the prevailing wage structure and
that the benefits granted to the employees of other closed PSUs pursuant to the
judgment dated 03.01.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 4355/2010, were also liable
to be extended to him. In this regard, the petitioner, along with others,
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1932/2014. The said writ petition was
heard along with WP(C) No. 1930/2008 and by order dated 23.11.2015, the
employees were permitted to submit their individual claims before the
concerned authority for consideration and disposal.
7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his individual claim before the
respondent authority, seeking, inter alia, calculation of his dues and VRS
benefits on the basis of the Assam Government R.O.P., 1998 and extension of
the benefits granted by this Court in WP(C) No. 4355/2010. The Official
Liquidator, Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, by the impugned order
dated 22.09.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner, observing that he had
drawn his salary under the Central Sugar Wage Board-III and therefore, his VRS

Page No.# 5/14
benefits were calculated on the basis of the said wage structure. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
8. Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court,
vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2008, passed in WP(C) No. 1930/2008,
had directed that the dues of the employees of the Mill be settled by treating
them in a manner similar to the employees of other closed PSUs. Pursuant to
the revised VRS policy dated 15.02.2006, the VRS benefits payable to the
employees of other PSUs were calculated on the basis of the revised pay
structure, whereas in the case of the petitioner the benefits have been
calculated on the basis of the Central Sugar Wage Board-III, which was
applicable only for a limited period.
9. He submits that the benefits granted to the employees of other PSUs
pursuant to the judgment dated 03.01.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 4355/2010,
including House Rent Allowance and Medical Allowance, are also liable to be
extended to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid direction of this Court to treat
the employees of the Mill similarly to the employees of other closed PSUs. Thus,
the VRS benefits of the petitioner are required to be recalculated on the basis of
ROP, 1998, taking into account the admissible allowances including House Rent
Allowance and Medical Allowance. He further submits that the alleged resolution
of the employees' association opting for continuation of the Central Sugar Wage
Board-III pay structure cannot deprive the petitioner of his accrued rights to
salary and other benefits.
10. In support of his submission, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has relied on the following judgments:
(i) Judgment and order dated 08.08.2008, passed in WP(C) No.

Page No.# 6/14
1930/2008, Chanikal Karmachari Samannaya Samittee v. State of Assam &
Ors.;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 03.01.2014 passed in WP(C) No.
4355/2010, All Assam Statefed Karmachari Aikya Manch & Ors. v. State of
Assam & Ors.;
(iii) Judgment and order dated 23.11.2015 passed in WP(C) No.
1930/2008, after revival, along with W.P.(C) No. 1932 of 2014;
(iv) Judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed in WP(C) No.
2436/2013, Arup Kumar Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.;
(v) Judgment and order dated 25.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No.
3569/2015, The Industrial Papers Assam Ltd. Employees Union & Ors. v.
State of Assam & Ors.; and
(vi) Judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.
2633/2014, Asom Rajyik Bastra Nigam Karmachari Santha & Anr. v. State
of Assam & Ors.
11. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly , reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156 ,
and the judgment of this Court in Usha Rani Goswami v. State of Assam &
Ors. , reported in 2011 (2) GLT 51 .
12. On the other hand, Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Co-
operation Department, submits that the petitioner and other employees of the
Mill had been receiving their salary and other benefits under the Central Sugar
Wage Board-III and the VRS benefits were accordingly calculated on the same
basis pursuant to the revised VRS policy dated 15.02.2006. The petitioner had

Page No.# 7/14
accepted the amount paid to him as full and final settlement and had also
furnished an undertaking to that effect without any protest. He submits that the
employees' association had also undertaken to accept the payment on the basis
of the Central Sugar Wage Board-III and not to insist upon the subsequent
Wage Board. The petitioner had been provided with a quarter and that neither
House Rent Allowance nor Medical Allowance formed part of the salary paid to
the employees of the Mill.
13. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the judgment dated
03.01.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 4355/2010, does not confer any right upon
the petitioner to claim benefits under the R.O.P. Rules, 1998, as the said
benefits were granted to employees of STATEFED who had earlier drawn their
salaries under the pay structure of the Government of Assam. The claim of the
petitioner was duly examined pursuant to the order dated 23.11.2015, passed in
WP(C) No. 1932/2014 and no further amount was found payable to him. He
submits that the State Government, by Cabinet decision dated 31.10.2009, had
extended the benefit of revision of pay under the R.O.P. Rules, 1998 only to four
specified State Public Sector Undertakings, i.e. (i) Assam State Cooperative
Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. (SCMCFED/STATEFED), (ii) Assam
Government Construction Corporation Ltd. (AGCC), (iii) Assam Agro Industries
Development Corporation (AAIDC) & (iv) Assam Conductors & Tubes Ltd.
(ASCON), which did not include the Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioner, having already received the amounts
payable to him under the applicable VRS and having accepted the same as full
and final settlement, is not entitled to seek recalculation of his VRS benefits on
the basis of the R.O.P. Rules, 1998.
14. In support of his submission, Mr. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel has

Page No.# 8/14
relied on the following judgments:
(i) A.K. Bindal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2003)
5 SCC 163 ;
(ii) Manojbhai N. Shah v. Union of India , reported in (2015) 4 SCC
482 ; and
(iii) Supervisor of IDPL v. Chairman & Managing Director, IDPL ,
reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490 .
15. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on
record.
16. The issue involve in the present writ petition is essentially with regard to
the claim of the petitioner for re-calculation of his VRS benefits on the basis of
R.O.P., 1998, together with certain allowances, despite the fact that the VRS
benefits have been extended to the employees of the Mill pursuant to the
revised VRS policy dated 15.02.2006 by calculating the same on the basis of the
Central Sugar Wage Board-III. The petitioner seeks to derive such entitlement
mainly in view of the judgment and order dated 08.08.2008, passed in WP(C)
No. 1930/2008, and the subsequent judgment dated 03.01.2014, passed in
WP(C) No. 4355/2010.
17. Admittedly, this Court, while disposing of WP(C) No. 1930/2008 by
judgment and order dated 08.08.2008, directed the respondents to take a
formal decision with regard to closure of the Mill and thereafter to initiate the
process for settlement of the dues of its employees by treating them in a
manner similar to the employees of other closed PSUs. Subsequently, upon
revival of the said writ petition and consideration of WP(C) No. 1932/2014 along

Page No.# 9/14
with the same, this Court, by order dated 23.11.2015, permitted the employees
having any grievance to submit their individual claims before the Official
Liquidator and directed that such claims be verified and appropriate individual
orders be passed thereon.
18. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the petitioner submitted
his individual claim before the Official Liquidator. Accordingly, the claim of the
petitioner was considered and by the impugned order dated 22.09.2016, the
Official Liquidator rejected the claim for re-calculation of the VRS benefits on the
basis of R.O.P., 1998, observing that since the petitioner had drawn his salary
under the Central Sugar Wage Board-III, he is entitled to VRS benefits on the
basis of the said wage structure. Therefore, the issue to be determined is as to
whether the petitioner has any legal right to have the benefits already paid to
him re-calculated on the basis of R.O.P., 1998.
19. Record reveals that the revised VRS policy dated 15.02.2006 was a general
policy applicable to the State Level Public Enterprises (SLPE). Clause 1 thereof
sets out the components of the VRS package, including ex-gratia, leave salary,
CPF dues, gratuity, unpaid salary/wages and savings under the Group Insurance
Scheme. Clause 2 further provides that, in all calculations of VRS benefits, the
basic pay and rate of dearness allowance shall be taken as on the date of
application by an employee opting for VRS and the date of closure of the SLPE,
whichever is applicable, and no request for revision shall thereafter be
entertained.
20. In the present case, the material placed before the Court does not disclose
that the employees of the Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited were ever
brought under the Assam Service (ROP) Rules, 1998. On the contrary, it is the
admitted position emerging from the pleadings and the records that the

Page No.# 10/14
petitioner had been drawing his salary under the Central Sugar Wage Board-III.
The impugned order records that the petitioner's VRS benefits were calculated
on that basis and the calculation had been examined by the Chartered
Accountant engaged by the Liquidator. The petitioner has not been able to place
before this Court any order, notification or Cabinet decision specifically
extending the benefit of ROP, 1998 to the employees of the Sugar Mill.
21. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgment dated 03.01.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 4355/2010, also does not
advance the case of the petitioner. The said judgment arose out of a claim made
by the employees of STATFED for payment of Medical Allowance, House Rent
Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance as components of their unpaid
salary. In that case, the Court noticed that the employees concerned were
governed by ROP, 1998 and the State Cabinet had subsequently accorded post
facto approval for revision of the scale of pay under ROP, 1998 in respect of four
specified State Public Sector Undertakings, namely, (i) Assam State Cooperative
Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. (SCMCFED/STATFED), (ii) Assam
Government Construction Corporation Ltd. (AGCC), (iii) Assam Agro Industries
Development Corporation (AAIDC) & (iv) Assam Conductors & Tubes Ltd.
(ASCON)
22. Thus, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be divorced from the factual
and administrative background in which it was rendered. The fact that the
employees of STATFED were held entitled to HRA, MA and CCA on the basis of
ROP, 1998 cannot be said that the employees of the Sugar Mill were also
governed by ROP, 1998. More importantly, the Cabinet decision referred to in
the said judgment specifically identified the four PSUs to which the post facto
revision under ROP, 1998 was extended. The Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills

Page No.# 11/14
Limited does not find place in the said list.
23. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order dated 23.11.2015,
passed in WP(C) No. 1930/2008 along with WP(C) No. 1932/2014. A perusal of
the said order, however, shows that this Court, instead of determining the
individual entitlement of each employee, directed the employees having any
grievance to submit their individual claims before the Official Liquidator. The
Official Liquidator was directed to verify the entitlement of each claimant and to
release whatever amount was found due, with an individual order to be passed
in respect of each claim. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to the
aforesaid direction. The petitioner's claim was registered and examined with
reference to the relevant records. The Liquidator noticed that the petitioner had
already received a total sum of Rs. 15,08,905/- towards gratuity, leave salary,
ex-gratia, arrear/unpaid salary and CPF. On verification, the Liquidator found no
justification for the petitioner's further claim of Rs.24,86,298/- and accordingly
rejected the claim, which in my view appears to be justified and valid.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the
employees' association could not have, by any alleged resolution or undertaking,
deprived the petitioner of his accrued rights. However, the contention proceeds
on the assumption that the petitioner had an accrued right to have his salary
and VRS benefits calculated under ROP, 1998. As noticed hereinbefore, no such
right has been established. The earlier judgment dated 08.08.2008 did not
confer upon the employees of the Mill a substantive right to have their pay
revised under ROP, 1998; it only directed that, for the purpose of settlement of
their dues consequent upon closure of the Mill, they be treated in a manner
similar to employees of other closed PSUs.
25. In this connection, the fact that the petitioner had been paid his salary

Page No.# 12/14
under the Central Sugar Wage Board-III assumes significance. The petitioner
has not demonstrated that, during the relevant period, the Mill had adopted
ROP, 1998 or that the State Government had subsequently approved such
adoption in respect of the Mill. The mere assertion that the Central Sugar Wage
Board-III had ceased to operate or that no subsequent Wage Board was
constituted cannot, in the absence of an appropriate government decision,
result in automatic substitution of the pay structure of the Mill by ROP, 1998.
26. The claim for House Rent Allowance and Medical Allowance is also
considered for rejection for the same reason. The judgment dated 03.01.2014
proceeded on the basis that HRA, MA and CCA formed part of the salary of the
employees concerned under ROP, 1998. However, the petitioner has failed to
established that these allowances formed part of the salary structure applicable
to him. The fact that such allowances were directed to be paid to the employees
of STATFED cannot, in the absence of any material showing that the petitioner
was governed by the same pay structure, create an entitlement in his favour.
27. It is true that the direction issued by this Court in the earlier proceedings
was to treat the employees of the Sugar Mill similarly to the employees of other
closed PSUs. That direction was duly acted upon by the State Government by
extending the VRS benefits to the employees of the Mill. The record placed
before the Court in the proceedings leading to the order dated 23.11.2015 itself
shows that substantial amounts were released by the State Government
towards the VRS liabilities of the employees and that the claims were thereafter
required to be individually verified and settled by the Official Liquidator. Thus,
the earlier orders of this Court cannot be construed as directing a further
revision of the pay structure of the employees in the absence of any decision of
the competent authority to that effect.

Page No.# 13/14
28. Another circumstance which cannot be lost sight of is that the petitioner
accepted the amount of Rs. 15,08,905/- towards his dues and, according to the
respondents, furnished an undertaking accepting the same as full and final
settlement. Even assuming that the said undertaking is not by itself conclusive
of the petitioner's claim, the petitioner must first establish the substantive basis
of his alleged entitlement to a higher amount. In the present case, such
entitlement has not been established either from the revised VRS policy or from
any subsequent government decision applicable to the employees of the Sugar
Mill.
29. The contention that the petitioner should be permitted to claim ROP, 1998
because it would be more beneficial to him also cannot be accepted. The
principle of beneficial treatment recognised in the judgment dated 08.08.2008
cannot be stretched to the extent of directing the State Government to apply a
particular pay revision which was never made applicable to the employees of
the Mill. The Court cannot substitute its own determination of the appropriate
pay structure for that of the competent authority, particularly when the claim
involves determination of financial liabilities arising out of the closure of a public
undertaking.
30. This Court noticed that the impugned order may not be elaborate in its
reasoning; but, the substance of the decision is clear. The Liquidator considered
the petitioner's claim, referred to the pay structure under which he had actually
drawn his salary, took note of the calculation already made and verified, and
found no further amount payable to him. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate that the conclusion reached by the Liquidator is contrary to any
binding government policy or to any direction contained in the earlier orders
passed by this Court.

Page No.# 14/14
31. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, do not assist the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The
judgment dated 08.08.2008 directed similar treatment in the matter of
settlement of the dues consequent upon closure of the Mill; the judgment dated
03.01.2014 dealt with employees of STATFED who were governed by ROP, 1998
and in whose case the State Cabinet had specifically accorded post facto
approval; and the order dated 23.11.2015 merely provided a mechanism for
examination and settlement of individual claims. None of these decisions confers
upon the petitioner an automatic right to have his VRS benefits recalculated
under ROP, 1998. The other authorities relied on by the parties are not
discussed as the same are not relevant for the purpose of determination of the
present issue.
32. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered
view that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal or enforceable right to
recalculation of his VRS benefits on the basis of ROP, 1998 or to claim HRA and
Medical Allowance on the strength of the judgment dated 03.01.2014, passed in
WP(C) No. 4355/2010. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.09.2016
does not warrant interference of this Court.
33. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order
as to cost(s).

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant