Gauhati HC Directs Assam Education Department to Consider Case of Grade-IV Employee Who Worked 35 Years Without Regular Pay

Pabindra Kumar Das served Paschim Bonbhag High School since 1991 against leave and retired vacancies, received no salary after 2005, and later worked as a cook for the school’s mid-day meal programme.

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Secondary Education Department to consider the service and salary claim of Pabindra Kumar Das, a Grade-IV employee who has been associated with Paschim Bonbhag High School in Nalbari district since 1991. Justice Shamima Jahan, sitting singly, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding that non-payment of wages to an employee whose services have been utilised by the authority, even without a sanctioned post, is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights. The court found that Das had worked for approximately 35 years, received no salary after 2005, and had made representations to the authorities from 2017 onwards without any response from the Inspector of Schools.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Das was appointed temporarily in a Grade-IV post in Paschim Bonbhag High School against a leave vacancy, with his appointment made effective from 1 March 1991 to 31 March 1991, in the pay scale of Rs. 900–Rs. 1,435 plus allowances. His appointment was extended from time to time. By an order dated 19 April 1991, he was allowed to continue as a Grade-IV employee in the same school.

The Executive Committee of the school subsequently passed a resolution requesting the concerned authority to sanction a Grade-IV post along with one post of Night Chowkidar. On 13 June 1994, the Principal issued an appointment letter placing Das against an honorary post, noting that he had been working since 1 June 1991 and would continue from that date. On the same day, the Inspector of Schools forwarded a proposal to the Director of Secondary Education for sanctioning one Grade-IV post, stating that the school had been newly provincialised and only three Grade-IV posts had been sanctioned.

Das received salary against the leave vacancy from 1991 to 2002. By an order dated 6 September 2004, he was allowed to draw salary against a retired vacancy, and he received monthly salary on that basis from 2002 to 2005. After 2005, no salary was paid to him. From 2017 onwards, he made representations before the Inspector of Schools seeking payment of salary and sanctioning of his post. The Principal of the school forwarded his representation to the Inspector of Schools, requesting payment of salaries from 1 January 2006 and noting that a Grade-IV post was lying vacant due to the retirement of an earlier employee. The Inspector of Schools did not reply.

By the time the writ petition was heard, Das was stated to have worked as a Grade-IV employee until December 2025, after which he began working as a Cook for the mid-day meal provided to students of the same school.

The Legal Issue

The petitioner sought two reliefs: a direction to the Director of Secondary Education to sanction the Grade-IV post, and/or a direction to hold a selection process to accommodate him. His counsel, Mr G Das, argued that the appointment could be characterised as irregular but not illegal, and that Das had continued in service from the date of his temporary appointment to the present. Reliance was placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and Jaggo v. Union of India & Others, reported in 2025 0 AIR (SC) 296.

The Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Ms H Terangpi, accepted that Das had been appointed against a leave vacancy and that his services were extended over time, but contended that accommodating him against a Grade-IV post could only be done through a valid selection process, which had not been undertaken. Counsel for the Managing Committee and the Principal, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 6, submitted that Das had not been appointed against any sanctioned post and was working voluntarily, and therefore had no right to regularisation.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Shamima Jahan accepted that the post against which Das was working was not a sanctioned post and that no valid selection process had been conducted. The court did not direct regularisation or sanction of a new post. However, it drew a distinction between the question of regularisation and the question of payment for services actually rendered.

The court held that it is settled law that if services are utilised by an authority even without a sanctioned post, the basic salary must be paid to the employee. Withholding payment in such circumstances is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights, particularly where the employee has been made to work for a long period. In Das’s case, that period was approximately 35 years.

The court acknowledged that the writ petition had been filed after a gap of 19 years since salary payments stopped in 2005. It did not treat this delay as fatal, observing that Das had made representations in the intervening period and that, being a Grade-IV employee, he was under the impression that the authorities would regularise his services and pay his dues. The court also noted that the Principal had written to the Inspector of Schools forwarding his case, but the Inspector had not replied.

On the question of legitimate expectation, the court found that Das had built up a legitimate expectation in respect of his post, having worked in a Grade-IV capacity for 35 years. Although he was no longer working as a Grade-IV employee and had shifted to working as a Cook for the mid-day meal programme since January 2026, the court held that his case should still be considered on account of his long service in the Grade-IV post.

Outcome

Justice Shamima Jahan directed the authorities in the Secondary Education Department to consider Das’s case on a fresh representation being made by him. Das was directed to submit a fresh representation before the said authority along with a certified copy of the order. The authorities were directed to consider his case within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

The writ petition was disposed of on 13 May 2026.