Anuradha Endow And 5 Ors vs The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited And 6 Ors

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010071122024

2026:GAU-AS:12586
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2097/2024
ANURADHA ENDOW AND 5 ORS
D/O- SANAKAR ENDOW,
RESIDENT OF VILL- UTTARPARA, UDHARBOND,
IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR, ASSAM,
PIN- 788030.
2: SUJIT DAS
SON OF SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DURGANAGAR P-VII

P.O.- UDHARBOND
DIST.- CACHAR

ASSAM
PIN- 788030.
3: ABUL HUSSSAIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE NURUDDIN CHOUDHURY

RESIDENT OF VILL- BAGPUR PART-II

IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM

PIN- 788101.
4: SUBRATA NATH
S/O- CHITTAMOHAN NATH

RESIDENT OF VILL- JARAITOLA

IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/14

PIN- 788127.
5: ALTAB HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O- ABDUL SALAM LASKAR

RESIDENT OF VILL- GOSSAIPUR PART-III

IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM

PIN- 788030.
6: MADHUMITA BHATTACHARJEE
W/O- SRI NEELOTPAL BHATTACHARJEE

RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 5 (L)

OPPOSITE RANGIRKHARI

P.O.- RANGIRKHARI

IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM

PIN- 788005
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LTD. (APDCL),
BIJULEE BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-01.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-01.
3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
APDCL/ AEGCL/ APGCL FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF OFFICE CUM
FIELD ASSISTANT (EXPERIENCED)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-01.
4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
HRA
APDCL

Page No.# 3/14
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-1.
5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SILCHAR DIVISION
APDCL (CAZ)
SILCHAR
PIN- 788001.
6:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
UDHARBOND ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
APDCL
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788030.
7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
SANAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
APDCL
SANAI
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM

PIN- 788815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BORO, MR H P GUWALA,MR. S BASUMATARY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,

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


Date on which judgment is reserved :
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.08.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes

Page No.# 4/14
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)


Heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. R.
Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Assam Power Distribution Company
Limited (APDCL), appearing for all the respondents.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the speaking order dated
31.05.2023 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Power Distribution
Company Limited (in short, “APDCL”), whereby the claim of the petitioners for
regularisation of service and/or for extending them the benefit of the minimum
of the pay scale payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee has
been rejected. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent
authorities to regularise their services and/or to extend them the benefit of the
minimum of the pay scale, in terms of the judgment and order dated
03.01.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5629/2020.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they have been working under the
APDCL on contractual/outsourced basis as Meter Reader and Bill Clerk under
Udharbond Electrical Sub Division for a considerable length of time. However,
despite their long period of service, the petitioners have continued to be
engaged as contractual/outsourced workers without regularisation of their
services. 
4. The APDCL, vide Advertisement dated 14.08.2018, invited applications for
filling up various posts, including Office-cum-Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali,
with prescribed eligibility for candidates having experience of working as
contractual workers under APDCL, AEGCL and APGCL. The petitioners, having
the requisite experience, participated in the selection process. Their names

Page No.# 5/14
appeared in the provisional merit list published on 10.02.2020 in respect of
candidates who had appeared in the OMR based examination held on
28.04.2019 for the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant (experienced); however,
they were not included in the subsequent short-list for document verification. 
5. Being aggrieved by their exclusion from the short-list, the petitioners
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5629/2020. In the said proceeding,
apart from challenging their exclusion from the short-list, the petitioners also
sought consideration of their cases for regularisation on the ground that they
had been rendering service under APDCL for more than 10 years. This Court, by
judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, directed the APDCL to consider the
individual cases of the petitioners in the manner indicated therein. The said
judgment was thereafter forwarded to the respondent authorities along with
representation dated 06.01.2022 requesting compliance with the directions of
this Court. However, as the respondent authorities did not take any action in the
matter, the petitioners filed a contempt petition, being Contempt Case No.
738/2022. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondent
authorities passed the impugned speaking order dated 31.05.2023, rejecting the
claim of the petitioner on the ground that none of them had completed 10 years
of service as on 10.04.2006 and that their engagements were not against
sanctioned vacant posts, but were need-based. In respect of the claim for
financial benefit, it was stated that more than 800 persons were claiming
identical benefits and that extending such benefit would involve a financial
burden of approximately Rs.21.85 crores per annum, which APDCL claimed it
was not in a position to bear.
6. The petitioner contends that the findings recorded in the impugned

Page No.# 6/14
speaking order are contrary to the records and the verification undertaken by
the respondent authorities themselves. The ground of financial burden taken by
the respondent authorities also cannot be sustained, as the cases of the
petitioners were required to be considered in terms of the judgment and order
dated 03.01.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5629/2020. Hence, being
aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities and the denial of the
benefits claimed by them, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition. 
7. Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned
speaking order dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as the
respondent authorities, while considering the cases of the petitioners pursuant
to the judgment dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, have failed
to properly give effect to the directions contained therein. He submits that the
petitioners have been working under APDCL for several years and their service
particulars were called for and verified by the authorities themselves and
therefore, the rejection of their claims on the basis of incorrect particulars
cannot be sustained. 
8. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, submits that in the case of similarly situated
workers, the Government of Assam has already taken a decision to provide job
security and other service benefits to non-regularized casual employees and
accordingly issued a Notification dated 08.03.2019, inter alia, directing all the
Departments to provide the minimum pay scale, i.e. P.B-1 with Grade Pay,
Medical Allowance, D.A., House Rent Allowance as per the State norms to their
Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual and similarly placed employees. Therefore,
the action of the respondent authorities in filling up the existing vacancies while

Page No.# 7/14
excluding the petitioners, despite their having performed duties similar to those
performed by regularly appointed employees, is contrary to the principle of
equal pay for equal work and the guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
9. While referring to the principles governing regularisation, Mr. Boro, learned
counsel for the petitioners, places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and submits that the cases of employees, who
had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, without the intervention of
any order of the Court and against sanctioned posts, were required to be
considered as a one-time measure. He submits that the judgment dated
03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, itself directed APDCL to examine
the individual cases of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid principle.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment
dated 08.06.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.
45/2014, and submits that persons who have been continuously engaged and
are performing the same nature of work as regularly appointed employees are
entitled to at least the minimum of the pay scale payable to the corresponding
regularly appointed employees. He submits that the judgment dated
03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, specifically directed APDCL to
consider those petitioners who had not completed 10 years of service as on
10.04.2006 but had completed more than 10 years thereafter for extending the
benefit of minimum of the pay scale. 
11. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, submits that the plea of financial burden raised
by APDCL cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit which the

Page No.# 8/14
respondent authorities were directed to be considered by this Court. The
respondent authorities, having continued the petitioners in service for several
years and having utilized their services during the said period, cannot deny
them fair remuneration by merely referring to the financial implications involved.
In support of the said submission, learned counsel also places reliance upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation
Tubewells Corporation & Others vs. G.S. Uppal & Others , reported in
(2008) 7 SCC 375 .
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities
were required to examine the individual cases of the petitioners in the manner
indicated by this Court in the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in
WP(C) No. 5629/2020. However, while passing the impugned speaking order,
the respondent authorities have failed to undertake such examination in its
proper perspective and consequently, have failed to extend to the petitioners
the benefit contemplated under the said judgment.
13. Mr. Boro, learned counsel, further submits that the petitioners have
rendered service for several years, in some cases extending to more than 15
years, and having utilised their services for such a long period, the respondent
authorities cannot adopt a policy of continuing them as contractual/outsourced
workers indefinitely while denying them the benefit of regularisation or, at the
least, the minimum of the pay scale payable to an equivalent regularly
appointed employee. Therefore, he submits that the impugned speaking order
dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be
directed to extend to the petitioners the benefits contemplated under the
judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020.

Page No.# 9/14
14. On the other hand, Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the
APDCL, submits that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022,
passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, the respondent authorities duly examined the
cases of the petitioners with regard to their claim for regularisation as well as
for extending the benefit of minimum of the pay scale. Upon such examination,
the APDCL undertook an exercise for identifying the eligible outsourced workers
and, having regard to their length of service and the financial position of the
Corporation, decided to enhance their remuneration. 
15. Learned Standing Counsel submits that, taking into consideration the long-
standing demand of the outsourced workers and with the approval of the
Government of Assam, the Board of Directors of APDCL, by Resolution No.93(I)
(II) adopted in its meeting dated 28.06.2023, decided to enhance the monthly
remuneration of eligible outsourced workers receiving direct payment from
APDCL. Pursuant thereto, Office Order dated 02.12.2023 was issued prescribing
enhanced remuneration based upon the length of engagement of the concerned
outsourced workers, with the enhanced remuneration for those having 10 years
or more of experience being fixed at Rs. 18,000/- per month. The said benefit
was thereafter extended to the petitioners by Office Orders dated 14.12.2023,
issued by the concerned Chief Executive Officers of APDCL. Therefore, he
submits that the direction of this Court to consider the cases of the petitioners
has been duly acted upon and the eligible petitioners have been granted
enhanced remuneration.
16. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, further submits that the one-time
exercise contemplated in Umadevi (supra) had already been undertaken by
APDCL in the year 2013 and the employees found eligible in the said exercise

Page No.# 10/14
had already been regularised. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners, who
do not fulfill the conditions contemplated for such one-time regularisation,
cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. He submits that the
engagement of the petitioners was need-based and was not against any
sanctioned vacant post. The mere fact that the petitioners have continued to
render service for a considerable period would not, by itself, confer upon them
any right to regularisation, particularly when the requirements for regularisation
in terms of the applicable law are not satisfied. 
17. Insofar as the claim for minimum of the pay scale is concerned, learned
Mr. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, submits that the judgment dated 03.01.2022,
passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, did not direct automatic grant of the minimum
pay scale to every petitioner, but required the respondent APDCL to consider the
individual cases in accordance with the conditions indicated therein. He submits
that pursuant to such consideration, the APDCL has already granted enhanced
remuneration to the eligible petitioners after extended the benefit of enhanced
remuneration to the eligible petitioners, taking into account, inter alia, the
financial position of the Corporation and the fact that more than 800 similarly
situated outsourced workers were seeking the same benefit. It is contended
that extending the minimum of the regular pay scale to all such workers would
impose a substantial recurring financial liability upon the Corporation.
Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel submits that the decision taken by the
APDCL was a conscious decision arrived at upon due consideration of the
financial implications involved.
18. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the impugned speaking
order dated 31.05.2023 was passed upon consideration of the relevant service

Page No.# 11/14
particulars and the financial implications involved and that there is no deliberate
non-compliance with the judgment dated 03.01.2022. The petitioners have
already been granted enhanced remuneration pursuant to the subsequent
decision of APDCL and, therefore, no further direction for grant of minimum of
the regular pay scale or regularisation is called for. 
19. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 
20. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working under the
APDCL for a considerable length of time. Record reveals that pursuant to the
judgment and order dated 03.01.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 5629/2020, the
respondent authorities undertook an exercise for consideration of the individual
cases of the petitioners. In the course of such exercise, the APDCL also took a
decision to enhance the remuneration of the eligible outsourced workers, having
regard to their length of service and the financial position of the Corporation. 
21. Pursuant thereto, the Board of Directors of the APDCL, by Resolution
No.93(I)(II) adopted in its meeting dated 28.06.2023, decided to enhance the
remuneration of the eligible outsourced workers receiving direct payment from
the APDCL. In pursuance thereof, by Office Order dated 02.12.2023, the
petitioners were extended the benefit of enhanced remuneration, having regard
to the length of their engagement. To that extent, the respondent authorities
have acted upon the direction issued by this Court in the earlier proceeding. 
22. Insofar as the prayer for regularisation is concerned, this Court is of the
view that the petitioners cannot claim such benefit merely on the basis of their
length of service. Even taking into consideration the dates of engagement relied

Page No.# 12/14
upon by the petitioners, none of them had completed 10 years of service as on
10.04.2006. Therefore, they do not fall within the category of employees
contemplated in Umadevi (supra), whose cases could be considered for
regularisation as a one-time measure. In such circumstances, the claim of the
petitioners for regularisation cannot be accepted.
23. The petitioners have also claimed the benefit of minimum of the pay scale.
In this regard, it is to be noticed that the petitioners have continued to render
service under the APDCL for several years and their claim is that they have been
discharging duties corresponding to those performed by regularly appointed
employees in the Grade-IV category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  State of
Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh & Others , reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , has
considered the claim of temporary employees for minimum of the pay scale and
has held that where temporary employees discharge duties and responsibilities
similar to those discharged by regular employees, they would be entitled to the
minimum of the pay scale applicable to the corresponding regular employees.
24. The fact that the petitioners may not be entitled to regularisation would
not, by itself, disentitle them from claiming minimum of the pay scale. In Jagjit
Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that temporary employees
who discharge duties and responsibilities similar to those performed by regular
employees cannot be denied the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the
corresponding regular post merely on account of the nature of their
engagement.
25. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have been continuing in
service for a considerable period and have been discharging duties under the
APDCL. The fact that they are engaged as outsourced workers cannot be a

Page No.# 13/14
ground for denying them the benefit of minimum of the pay scale, if the duties
and responsibilities actually performed by them are the same as, or comparable
with, those performed by the corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV
employees. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners has to be considered with
reference to the nature of duties actually discharged by them. 
26. The grant of enhanced remuneration pursuant to the Office Order dated
02.12.2023 also does not redress the claim of the petitioners for minimum of
the pay scale. The enhanced remuneration was fixed by the APDCL for eligible
outsourced workers on the basis of their length of engagement. The claim for
minimum of the pay scale, on the other hand, is based upon the nature of
duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioners and the principle of
equal pay for equal work recognised in Jagjit Singh (supra).
27. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the
claim of the petitioners for the minimum of the pay scale requires to be
examined on the basis of the nature of duties and responsibilities actually
discharged by each of them and their comparability with the corresponding
Grade-IV posts in the regular establishment. Accordingly, the respondent
authorities are directed to undertake such examination in respect of each of the
petitioners. In the event it is found that the duties and responsibilities
discharged by the petitioners are substantially similar to those attached to the
corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV posts, the petitioners be granted
the minimum of the pay scale applicable to such corresponding posts, in
accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra).
28. Furthermore, if the benefit of enhanced remuneration under the Office

Page No.# 14/14
Order dated 02.12.2023 has not already been extended to any of the
petitioners, the respondent authorities shall examine their respective cases and
extend the said benefit to such petitioners as are found eligible in terms of the
said Office Order.
29. The aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken, shall be completed
within a period of 3 (three) months from today.
30. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. 


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant