Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan
Musarif Hussain Laskar, Son of Late Siraj Uddin Laskar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented By the Secretary To The Got. of Assam, Department of School Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Robin Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D. Musahary, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department.
2. In these petitions, i.e. WP(C) No. 3035/2023 and WP(C) No. 4353/2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, Abdul Hannan Laskar and Musarif Hussain Laskar have challenged the same common Order, No. ASE95/2022/218-A, dated 20.02.2023, passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education.
3. As a common question of law is involved in these two writ petitions and as agreed upon by learned Advocates of both sides, it is proposed to dispose of these two petitions, by this common judgment and order.
4. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 20.02.2023, the claim of the petitioners with regards to granting of graduate scale of pay, was rejected by the Department of School Education.
Background facts:-
5. The background facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are briefly stated as under:-
“The petitioner in writ petition No. 4353/2023, namely, Musarif Hussain Laskar was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher for pre-senior section in Sonai Senio
The denial of graduate scale of pay to qualified Madrassa teachers, while granting it to others, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, constituting discrimination.
The court established that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply rigidly when different qualifications and job responsibilities exist, and that the government has the discretion to....
Retrospective application of cut-off dates in legislation violating vested rights is unconstitutional under Article 14; tutors as government servants are entitled to equal treatment with regular pay ....
Rights under Article 14 do not support negative equality; benefits granted illegally to others cannot be used as a basis for similar claims.
The denial of arrears of Dearness Allowance to contractual teachers performing equal duties as regular teachers violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, asserting the principle of equal pay f....
Differential pay for upgraded teachers under distinct service rules does not violate equal protection rights as the applicable statutes govern entitlements.
The court emphasized the principle of equal pay for equal work and mandated reconsideration of petitioners' claims for regularization and pay, acknowledging their qualifications and similar duties co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
