WP(C)/3121/2026 of RAMKRISHNA RIKIASON AND 5 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 11 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 12-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioners, who were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in various venture institutions and whose services were subsequently provincialised as Tutors under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners.

3. Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Mohor Ali Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2024

(5) GLT 689, submits that the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by observing as under : “179. It is true that the courts cannot direct the legislature to enact law in a particular manner. However, in discharge of its statutory obligation the Government, in exercise of its Rule making power, will have a duty to frame Rules for proper implementation of the provisions of the Statute. While framing the Rules, the State will also be under a bounden duty to, not only to act in terms of the scheme of the Act but also to unflinchingly adhere to the Constitutional norms of equality. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the State Government itself, in exercise of its Rule making power under section 23 of the Act, takes necessary steps to provide for a regular pay scale to the Tutors, which can even be commensurate to the pay structure indicated in the Schedule of the Governing Act. Such a measure, in our view, will restore the equality of treatment to this category of Teachers with the other Government employees and at the same time will not become burdensome to the exchequer. We, therefore, direct the respondents to initiate necessary steps in the matter, in the light of the observations made here-in-above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from today.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, submits that the present petitioners are also similarly situated and are squarely covered by the aforementioned decision and, as such, this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to examine and consider the case of the petitioners and, if the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforementioned decision, then to grant similar benefit to them.

5. Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondents, submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by directing the petitioners to file their individual representations before the respondent authorities along with a copy of this writ petition and also the decision of Mohor Ali Sheikh (supra).

6. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioners to file their individual representation(s) before the respondent authorities along with a copy of this writ petition and the relevant annexures and the decision of Mohor Ali Sheikh (supra), with a certified copy of this order and on such representation(s) being filed by the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall examine the matter and if the present petitioners are found to be similarly situated with the petitioners of WP(C) No.2729/2019, then similar benefit may be granted to the present petitioners also. The aforementioned exercise be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

7. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant