Gauhati High Court Directs Temporary Music Teacher To Seek Governor’s Discretionary Powers For Qualifying Her Service For Pension

Gauhati High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan dismissed the petition for regularisation filed by a temporary music teacher, after serving for 18 continuous years. The court held that the claim was barred by res judicata as it was already adjudicated previously. However, the court provided another remedy: to approach the Governor to invoke discretionary powers under Rules 31 and 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court explained that these rules allow for consideration of pensionary benefits, even if the employee does not meet the standard eligibility criteria.

Background

Juri Baruah joined as a music teacher in 1994, on an ad hoc basis for 3 months. After these three months expired, her temporary appointment was then extended for another 6 months, and she continued work in this capacity. In 1996, the state initiated a regularisation process for all music teachers and conducted interviews; however, this process was never completed. In 2012, the Director of Secondary Education abruptly stopped her salary. He did not conduct any hearing or issue a show-cause notice, and also failed to follow proper termination procedures. Aggrieved, Baruah filed a writ petition in 2013 challenging the stopping of her salary. The court passed a favourable order and directed the authorities to pay her salary. This was also subsequently paid.

In 2023, Baruah filed a representation requesting to resume her duty. However, a few months later she received a communication informing her that her employment was terminated. Significantly, another music teacher, Ranjita Sharma, in a similar position had also filed a writ petition in 2011. The court had directed the state to consider her regularisation after proper enquiry, and she was subsequently regularised by the Director of Secondary Education. Baruah filed a writ petition, arguing that she ought to be treated similarly.

Arguments

Juri Baruah argued that she was entitled to similar treatment as the other music teacher, who was regularised post the court order. She argued that stopping her salary and terminating her employment without following any due procedure was illegal and arbitrary. Citing Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 INSC 144), she argued that she ought to be regularised and that her period of absence should count towards continuity of service. She argued that she was eligible for regularisation as she had worked for 18 years continuously, on a regular scale of pay. Alternatively, she argued that if regularisation was not possible, she should be granted voluntary retirement and pension benefits in recognition of her long service.

On the other hand, the Secondary Education Department argued that Baruah had made similar prayers in her earlier 2013 writ petition, but the court had denied the regularisation claim. They argued that the same issue could not be raised again, as it was barred by res judicata. The Department claimed that Baruah was appointed on an ad hoc basis, which was continuously extended until the Director decided not to in 2012. They argued that since it was not a regular post, Baruah had no right to claim regularisation. Citing State of Bihar & Ors. v. Devendra Sharma (Civil Appeal no. 7879 OF 2019), they argued that appointments that do not follow proper procedures are illegal, and that they cannot be eligible for pension or other statutory benefits.

Court’s Reasoning

Firstly, the court agreed that the claim for regularisation was barred by res judicata. Citing Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Bombay (Civil Appeal No. 670 of 1963), the court held that res judicata also applies to writ petitions. Since the prayer for regularization had already been decided in the 2013 petition, the court held that it could not be reopened again.

Secondly, the court clarified that even though the other music teacher Ranjita Sharma was regularised following a court order, the same would not help Baruah. The court explained that despite them being similarly situated, the doctrine of res judicata prevents Baruah from claiming the same remedy.

Thirdly, the court discussed the alternate prayer of voluntary retirement. The court noted that Rule 31, Chapter III of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter, ‘Pension Rules’), provides three conditions for qualifying a service for pension: first, the service must be under the government; second, employment must be substantive and permanent; and third, the service must be paid for by the government. The court explained that while Baruah fulfilled the first and last conditions, she did not meet the second requirement of substantive and permanent employment.

Nevertheless, the court noted that under the Pension Rules, Rule 235 allows the governor to relax these requirements in cases of undue hardships to deal with them in a just and equitable manner. Additionally, the court held that the proviso to Rule 31 empowers the Governor to allow the service rendered to count for pension in certain cases.

Recognising that Baruah had provided 18 years of continuous service, the court allowed her the liberty to approach the Governor through the Director of Secondary Education. The court further directed the Director must forward this representation to the Governor’s office. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.

Decided on: May 23, 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:6569

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Dutta, Mr. B. Purkayastha

Counsel for the Respondents: GA, Assam, Mr. S.K. Medhi (SC, AG), SC, Sec. Edu., SC, AG, Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Ms. M. Barman, Ms. D.D. Barman

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}