WP(C)/2530/2026 of ABDUL KUDDUS SK AND 26 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 14 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 15.05.2026

Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for respondent No.2.

2. Having considered the issue involved and the similar grievance has already been considered and disposed of by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up and disposed of at the motion stage itself.

3. Mr. B. D Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers/Hindi Teachers in different L.P/M.E. Schools on regular scale of pay on the recommendation of the Advisory Board sometime in the year 1993 to 2001 in the district of Dhubri. Although they were paid salaries for initial three months, but thereafter, the same was discontinued and the petitioners came to be appointed as Tutors under the provision of Section 2 (u) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 in different L.P Schools by an order dated 30.01.2021 at a fixed salary of Rs.10,800/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2020. He submits that the petitioners are discharging similar duties and functions as that of the regular teachers, but they have been deprived of regular scale of pay.

4. He submits that the case of the petitioners in fact is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohor Ali Sheikh and others –vs- State of Assam and others, reported in 2024 (5) GLT 689, wherein the Court directed the respondent authorities to determine the regular scale of pay to the Tutors which is commensurate to other Government employees within a time frame of six months.

5. He further submits that relying upon the case of Mohor Ali Sheikh and others (supra), a number of similarly situated persons had also approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5436/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2025 by directing the petitioners therein to approach the respondent authorities concerned to file their representations individually and with a further direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of such representations to be filed within a time frame and consequently if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated, similar benefit be granted to them as well.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and considering the earlier decision rendered by this Court in Mohor Ali Sheikh and others (supra) and in WP(C) No.5436/2025, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit their individual representations along with a certified copy of this order and copy of the writ petition with the annexure(s) before the respondent No.1. It is further provided that all the writ petitioners need not submit a copy of this writ petition and only the petitioner No.1 may submit the copy of the writ petition with annexures. Upon receiving the representations to be filed by the petitioners, the same be considered and in the event, it is found that the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in Mohor Ali Sheikh and others (supra) as well as in WP(C) No.5436/2025 and WP(C) No.2729/2019, similar benefit may be granted to them.

7. The entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant