Point of Law : Without even going into that aspect of matter, present action of denying the salaries to petitioner whose job is that of a Sweeper is held to be totally unjustified and wholly unfai.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri DK Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the Gauhati High Court; Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the Judicial Department and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

2. Considering the issue involved which relates to non-payment of salaries to the petitioner, who is a Sweeper in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Chirang since the date of his appointment in the year 2016 and also considering that the contesting respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. However, before going to the issue directly, it would be convenient to narrate the facts of the case briefly.

3. The establishment of the District & Sessions Judge in the district of Chirang was created in the year 2007. Vide the communication issued by the Judicial Department, Government of Assam dated 31.03.2007, the sanction of the Governor of Assam for creation of 158 number of posts in the newly created districts including that of Chirang was notified in which there were three numbers of posts of Sweeper, both in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge as well as in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and Staffs of Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court had taken a decision which was conveyed to all District Judges including that of the Chirang district, vide communication dated 05.10.2012 for filling up vacancies including the post of Sweeper. Pursuant thereto, the District & Sessions Judge, Chirang had initiated the recruitment process, vide a communication dated 12.08.2015 issued to the DIPR, Assam for publication of the advertisement in the Newspaper. The advertisement also included one post of Sweeper in the same pay-scales as a Peon (Office) and Chowkidar. The petitioner had participated in the said selection process for the post of Sweeper. In the meantime, the Judicial Department, Government of Assam had issued a communication dated 04.11.2015 conveying the sanction of the Governor of Assam to the permanent retention of 158 number of posts which includes three number of posts of Sweeper in each of the Courts of Udalguri, Chirang and Baksa. The said notification had also referred to the two Office Memoranda of the Finance Department dated 03.07.2015 and 04.09.2015.

4. With regard to the aforesaid recruitment process, the petitioner was issued a call letter dated 02.11.2015 to appear for the Viva-Voce, which was scheduled on 09.12.2015. In the said selection process, the petitioner was selected for the post of Sweeper and consequently, was duly appointed vide appointment letter dated 15.07.2016. The aforesaid appointment letter had clearly reflected that such appointment was against a post sanctioned by the Government on 31.03.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to such appointment order, he has joined the service as a Sweeper and has been discharging his duties diligently. However, the grievance of the petitioner is non receipt of the monthly salaries.

5. Shri Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it appears that the salaries have not been paid in view of an Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2012, as per which, the sweeping and cleaning services were required to be outsourced. He submits that the said Office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department would not be applicable in the instant case as the post of Sweeper in which the petitioner was appointed at Chirang has been permanently retained and till date, no decision has been taken to outsource the work of Sweeper in the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises control over service related matters not only on Judicial Officers but also of Minis