Gauhati HC Orders Pay for 5 Regularised Assam IWT Workers, Finding Its 2007 Salary Direction Was Never Recalled

The petitioners, former Muster Roll Workers in the Inland Water Transport Department, were stated to have been regularised with effect from 22 July 2005 by an order dated 21 October 2005.

They alleged that their salaries at the regular scale were withheld because of discrepancies in their names in the approval records and the absence of Finance Department approval.

In an earlier writ petition, WP(C) No. 4759/2007, the High Court directed the Finance Department to approve the corrected names and ordered release of salary, including arrears, once approval was accorded.

The Finance Department’s review petition and a related miscellaneous case were later shown as disposed of, but no order recalling the 2007 judgment was identified.

The respondents argued that the 2007 order had merged in the later appellate judgment in State of Assam v. Upen Das and that the 2005 regularisation order had been recalled; they produced no supporting recall order.

The petitioners did not press their challenge to the Finance Department’s Office Memorandum dated 16 June 2012.

A judicial or quasi-judicial decision between parties remains binding unless set aside through an appropriate legal process; an allegedly erroneous decision does not become a nullity merely because it may be wrong (V.S. Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar, (1999) 1 SCC 273).

A judgment affecting parties’ rights may be revisited only through recognised procedures such as review or appeal (Mudsidul Islam v. State of Assam, 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 5598); the binding effect of an adjudication is governed by its operative part (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602).

An order affecting civil rights does not become operative against the affected person until communicated, and internal file notings or uncommunicated orders do not acquire enforceability (State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395).

Contempt proceedings are subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court found no specific order in the later appeal or review proceedings that recalled the 2007 judgment; merely listing the review petition as connected did not establish that the earlier direction had been set aside.

Since no appeal had been brought against the 2007 order and no effective order recalling it was shown, the Court held that its direction remained final and binding.

The respondents’ assertion that the 2005 regularisation order had been recalled was unsupported by pleadings, departmental records, or a communicated order, and therefore could not be accepted.

Applying the operative direction in the 2007 judgment, the Court ordered release of the petitioners’ salaries.

It separately declined to proceed with contempt, finding that the 2024 petition concerned non-compliance with a 2007 order, was barred by limitation, and was unsupported by an explanation for the delay.

The challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 16 June 2012 was not pressed, so the Court did not grant relief on that issue.

The contempt petition, Contempt Case (C) No. 714/2024, was closed on limitation grounds.