The court emphasized the limitations on the exercise of powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the petitioners' claim was an attempt to reopen a settled issue.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.:

1. Heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Judicial and Finance Department, Ms. M.D. Borah, learned State Counsel, Shri S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, High Court and Shri A. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel, AG, Assam.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by the petitioners, who have joined together in this petition challenging the inaction of the authorities on the issue of payment of admissible allowances to the petitioners which has been projected as Basic Pay i.e. Pay Band plus Grade Pay as they have been made to stagnant without any cadre advancement.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners were appointed pursuant to their selection in different capacities of Grade-III & Grade-IV and were posted in various Fast Track Courts. The grievance of the petitioners relates to denial of various allowances to their Basic Pay. The petitioners are also aggrieved by rejection of their prayer to bring their services under the Pension Scheme.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to their selection, they were appointed in different capacities such as Stenographers, Bench Assistances, Peon, Driver etc. but were however paid fixed salaries. Accordingly, few of the present petitioners and some others had instituted a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 5153/2010 in which they had prayed for regularization of their services. The said writ petition was however dismissed by this Court vide an order dated 20.12.2012 against which, the petitioners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 12560/2013. It appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the point relating to fixation of pay scale equivalent to the pay scale given to the regular employee, which was submitted to be not considered by the High Court was not even raised. Accordingly, vide the order dated 12.04.2013, the SLP was dismissed with liberty to approach the High Court by way of a review petition.

5. Consequently, a review petition was filed before this Court which was numbered as Review. Pet. No. 82/2013. The same was disposed of vide an order dated 23.01.2017 in terms of the offer of settlement from the State Government that the service of the petitioners would not be dispensed with till attaining the age of superannuation (but for disciplinary action) and would be paid minimum wages of the regular pay scales from March, 2007 onwards. This Court had also noticed that during the pendency of the review petition, except eight petitioners, the services of the others were regularized on their selection and appointment against sanctioned post. Additionally, on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, liberty was given to make a representation to the State Government for extending the benefit of pension and also for counting of their past services for computing the pensionary dues and also for grant of medical benefit during the period they are in service.

6. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted the representation dated 05.08.2017. In the meantime, the Registrar General of this Court had issued communication dated 09.02.2018 to the Judicial Department was submission of service particulars in connection with Review Petition No. 82/2013.

7. Subsequently, the Judicial Department, Government of Assam had passed a Speaking Order dated 11.05.2018 on the representation dated 30.05.2017. It appears that this representation had not been annexed to the writ petition and only the representation dated 05.08.2017 has been annexed. Nevertheless, it has been conveyed that after consultation with the Pension and Public Grievances Department and the Finance Department, the claim of the petitioners for giving them the benefit of the Assam S