JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard the learned senior counsels as well as all the counsels representing the petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department; Mr. R.A. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the School Education Department and Mr. R.M. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Dima Hasao District Council.

2. The issue involved in the instant batch of writ petitions largely to say is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to pension in terms with the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules of 1969’) or as to whether the petitioners are covered by the “New Pension Scheme” which was brought into effect from 01.02.2005.

3. The larger issue as stated supra involves determination taking into account that in the instant batch of the writ petitions, the services of the petitioners were recruited to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Government of Assam in different modes for which it would be relevant for this Court to deal with the method by which the petitioners were inducted to services and posts of the Government of Assam. Broadly speaking, it appears that the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions can be compartmentalized into six different groups on the basis of their nature of appointment. The six different groups in the opinion of this Court taking into account the facts involved are (i) Stipendiary Teachers; (ii) Dropped Teachers; (iii) Teachers appointed against the Scheme, i.e. the Operation Black Board; (iv) Excess Teachers; (v) Ad-hoc grant teachers and lastly (vi) Teachers appointed in the 6th Schedule areas and more particularly in the instant batch of writ petitions by the Dima Hasao District Autonomous Council.

4. This Court would in the later part of the instant judgment deal with the specific reasons as to why the petitioners have been grouped in the above categories. However, before doing so, this Court finds it relevant to take into account the overall dispute involved in the instant proceedings. The dispute arose out of compulsion due to pension liability of the State Government of Assam which was rising exponentially. In the meantime, the Government of India had also introduced the Contributory Pension Scheme for its employees. Taking into account the same, a policy decision was taken by the State Government to formulate a similar Contributory Pension Scheme applicable to future State Government employees who joined the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State Government on or after 01.02.2005. In view of the said policy decision, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department had issued a circular on 25.01.2005 wherein it was mentioned that in view of the decision of the Government to have a Contributory Pension Scheme applicable in future to the State Government employees who joined the services of the State Government on or after 01.02.2005, it was mandatory to mention in all advertisements for filling up of vacant posts under the State Government as well as in the appointment letters of the selected candidates that they would be governed by the new set of pension rules which have been formulated in line with the Contributory Pension Scheme announced by the Government of India. Further to that, it was also decided that those fresh recruits joining the services of the State Government on or after 01.02.2005 had also to furnish an undertaking along with the joining report to the effect that they would be governed by the New Pension Rules and not to be governed by the existing Rules of 1969. It is apposite herein to mention and take into account that in the said communication dated 25.01.2005, the Finance Department of the Government of Assam apprised all concerned Government officials that