Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 890
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Ramanuj Chakraborty And Ors. S/o Ranabir Chakraborty - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 1314 Of 2023
Decided On : 18-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR S NATH, MR. S DUTTA,DR G J SHARMA
For the Respondent: SC, P AND R.D.
Casual workers may be entitled to minimum wages if engaged for significant periods but cannot claim automatic regularization merely based on similar duties to regular employees.
Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari - Employment Law - Casual Workers - Entitlement to wages and regularization - Petitioners engaged in various capacities as Casual Office Staff sought wages from 14.01.2019 and regularization of services, contending that their duties were similar to those of regular employees. Court noted that some petitioners, engaged since 2005, were entitled to minimum pay as per court decision while others were not due to their later engagement. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Legal Principles - Casual workers are entitled to be paid wages in accordance with the minimum pay scale applicable to regular employees if they have been engaged for significant durations. (Para 11)
(C) Appeals for regularization: Court reiterated that casual/temporary workers are not automatically entitled to regularization or additional benefits despite similar duties. (Paras 11-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed entitlements to wages and regularization, asserting equal responsibility as regular job holders despite being on casual terms since various years. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court held that petitioners who had served since 2005 are entitled to the benefits as outlined in a prior decision, while more recent hires do not qualify for similar benefits. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: Whether petitioners were entitled to wages from a specified date and if regularization could be granted based on their duties. (Paras 5, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that employment laws established the basis for wages owed to long-term casual workers, but recent hires were not similarly protected. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Petitioners granted partial relief; minors recognized based on engagement date, ruling that older hires qualify for increased wages. (Para 20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners contest wage payments and employment status (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. eligibility for wages and regularization based on duties (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents argue against wage claims for casual workers (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. previous court ruling on wage entitlement for casual workers (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. entitlement distinctions among petitioners based on engagement date (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. directions for representations and wage determinations (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. writ petition disposed with directions (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
2. The petitioners, herein, have instituted the present proceeding, praying for the following reliefs:
“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship's may be pleased to consider this petition, admit the same, call for the records and Issue Rule nisi upon the respondents as to why: -
(A) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing and/or commanding the respondents to immediately release wages of the petitioners with effect from 14.01.2019 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the wages with arrears at the minimum of the pay-scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale as extended to regular employees, holding the same post;
(B) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued to the respondents to consider regularisation of services of the petitioners.
-And-
Cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other or further order (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
-And-
Pending disposal of Rule, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to work on casual basis and to pay them current wages.”
3. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioners, herein, were engaged as Casual Office Staff on various dates in the Office of the District Rural Development Agency, Cachar. The petitioners on their such engagement, were being extended with a fixed pay. The materials brought on record would go to reveal that the petitioners, herein, were engaged for the works of Computer Assistant-cum-Clerk as well as of Driver. The petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, herein, were so engaged in the year 2005, whereas, the petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, herein, were so engaged in the year 2012 and 2015.
4. All the above-noted petitioners, herein, have contended that although they are discharging similar duties as has been discharged by the regular incumbents in the post of Computer Assistant-cum-Clerk as well as Driver; they have been denied the minimum of the pay received by a regular incumbent in a similar post. The petitioners have further contended that they are entitled to the benefits flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of Assam & ors. v. Upen Das & ors.[Writ Appeal No. 45/2014, judgment & order, dated 08.06.2017].
5. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that although the petitioners, herein, were engaged on casual basis; they are entitled to the benefits flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra). The learned counsel has further submitted that in view of the fact that the works done by the petitioners, herein, are perennial in nature; they are also entitled to have their cases considered for regularisation of their services.
6. Mr. Nath, learned counsel, has further submitted that the wages of the petitioners with effect from 14-01-2019, have not been released and accordingl
