WP(C)/5751/2025 of BIJOY KRISHNA DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 18 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 19.06.2026

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, PHE, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Ms. B. Nandini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG (A&E).

2. By way of this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking regularization of services and settlement of his pension claims in terms of the proposal dated 08.08.2024, which was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, PHE, to the office of the Secretary to the

Government of Assam, PHE, Department, by letter dated 08.10.2024.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the authorities in the department of PHE have adopted a process to regularize the service of dropped-out employees in the name and style of “Ex-Post-Facto Regularization,” who were appointed as Work Charge Pump Operator etc. prior to 1993 and could be brought under the purview of regularization in the year 2003 against the personal posts due to administrative lapses and negligence on the part of the State Government. On the basis of such Ex-Post-Facto Regularization, done after the retirement of the employee w.e.f. the eve of the date of retirement, the state respondents granted the pension/family pension as well as all other pensionary benefits to such employees.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner has been submitted repeatedly by the Executive Engineer, PHE Silchar Division No. II, the same has not been acted upon by the state respondents in the government level till date. The petitioner, after serving at the department for a period of 39 years, 6 months, and 15 days, has retired on 31.12.2023. The pension proposal of the petitioner has been submitted by the Executive Engineer, Silchar Division No. II, vide letter dated 08.08.2024, which has been forwarded by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 08.10.2024 to the government, but as of date, the said proposal has not been settled by the government, and as such, the petitioner is not getting his monthly pension till date after his retirement for no fault of his own but absolutely for administrative authorities. In the aforesaid premises, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to regularization of his service and consequential pensionary benefits in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2026 INSC 523.

6. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the Apex Court, while dealing with the claims of similarly situated work-charged employees, issued comprehensive directions in paragraph 79 thereof, inter alia, providing for regularization of eligible employees, grant of continuity of service and consequential pensionary benefits, including notional regularization and recalculation of pensionary dues in the case of retired employees. The Apex Court further clarified in paragraphs 96 and 97 that work-charged employees constitute a distinct class and that their entitlement to pension and other post- retiral benefits shall not be adversely affected by the observations made in State of Assam v. Upen Das, reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605. Liberty was also reserved to such employees to pursue their claims for pensionary and other consequential benefits before the State Government.

7. This Court further notices that a Coordinate Bench, while dealing with similar claims in Rabin Ch. Roy & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., in WP(C) No. 3157/2022, directed the petitioners therein to submit individual representations before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Health Engineering Department, and required the competent authority to consider such claims in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra).

8. In the present case, the petitioner claims to have rendered service for nearly four decades and has already retired from service on 31.12.2023. It further appears from the records that a proposal for regularization and settlement of pensionary benefits has already been forwarded by the departmental authorities to the Government. However, no final decision has yet been taken thereon.

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner’s claim is directed to be considered by the competent authority in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall submit a comprehensive representation, enclosing all relevant documents and a certified copy of this order, before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Health Engineering Department, within a period of thirty (30) days from today.

11. Upon receipt of such representation, the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, shall examine and consider the petitioner’s claim strictly in the light of the directions contained in paragraph 79 and the observations made in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra). In the event the matter requires consultation with or concurrence from the Finance Department, the same shall be processed expeditiously.

12. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the petitioner’s claim for regularization and consequential pensionary benefits and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and the same shall be considered independently by the competent authority in accordance with law.

14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant