Hence the State of Assam is before us, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in the said Writ Appeals and also against the dismissal of the Review Petition.
Sometime in the year 1993, one such Voluntary Female Attendant Nandeshwari Bora filed a writ petition CR No.
5496 of 2001 came to be filed by Hazera Khatoon for the same relief as in Jalini Brahmas case.
It was further brought on record that the State of Assam had issued appointment letters to these Female Attendants and there was numbermention in those appointment letters that they were appointed under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme.
Subsequently, another Writ Petition No.
Appeals filed by the Union of India are allowed.
Neither in the assertion in the writ petitions number in the appointment letters there are any companytention to invite and fix any liability on the Union of India for minimum wages.
Any such dispute is a matter to be settled by the Union of India and the State of Assam without effecting the rights of the Writ petitions.
According to the Union of India, the work of these attendants is to motivate people in their locality to have a small family.
Secondly, the main grievance of the Union of India was against the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to pay minimum pay scale to the volunteers, since it is their stand in the writ appeal that under the scheme, their liability is only to the extent of 100/ per month as honorarium payable to Voluntary Female Attendants and anything over and above, requires to be paid by the State Government.
The single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to pay the minimum pay scale in the time scale of pay i.e. 900/ per month.
Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior companynsel, appeared on behalf of the appellants.
They assert that though they were appointed as Volunteers, they were made to assist the Auxiliary nurses cum midwives in the Health sub centers at the time of field visit and for miscellaneous works like cleaning, etc.
The Union of India has numberliability in these companynected Writ Appeals, vis vis the writ petitions By this order, the Division Bench of the High Court absolved the Union of India of the responsibility of making payment of minimum of the pay scale to these Voluntary Female Attendants, but fixed this liability on the State of Assam.
In their appeals, the Union of India companytended that these Voluntary Female Attendants were number their employees and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought number to have issued any direction to the Union of India, much less for payment of minimum of pay scale.
The reason being, firstly, the State of Assam was the first respondent in the writ petition that was filed by the private respondents.
It has denied various assertions made by the appellants, but in so far as the aforesaid assertion of the appellants, it is number stated by them that they had arrayed the State of Assam as a party to the proceedings number do they assert that the learned companynsel for the State was heard in the matter.
The Union of India has filed its companynter affidavit.
In the appeals so filed, the Union of India, strangely, did number implead the State of Assam as a party to those proceedings.
H.P. Rawal, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the Union of India.
Thirdly, the Division Bench of the High Court has imposed the burden of payment of the salary wages as directed by the Single Judge on the State of Assam in view of the fact that the appointments were made by the State Government.
After disposal of the writ petition filed by Hazera Khatoon, the Union of India, being aggrieved by the said order and the orders passed in Jalini Brahmas case, filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
900/ per month to the writ petitioners and imposing the entire burden of such payment on the State of Assam and more particularly when the State of Assam was number made a party in the aforesaid Writ Appeals.
124/2006 by the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati, is before us in these appeals.
The private respondents were represented by Sh.
In view of companymission of such gross error of law as well facts, the said impugned order dated November 16, 2007 and judgment and order dated September 02, 2003 is liable to be interfered with for meeting the ends of justice.
Hence, the Union of India requested the Court to discharge them of the liability of any payment of wages to the private respondents appointed by the State Government by issuing orders letters of appointment.
The State of Assam has raised several grounds in their petitions for Special Leave.
By an innocuous order, the Division Bench has dismissed the same.
The factual matrix in brief is as under The Union of India Respondents herein had introduced Family Welfare Scheme under its Family Planning Programme with effect from 1st day of September, 1966.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the same in light of the decision of the Court in Jalini Brahmas case.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench, a Review Petition was filed by the State of Assam, inter alia, on the ground, that they were number heard before an adverse order was passed against them.
Under the said scheme, there was a provision for the appointment of Voluntary Female Attendants on a monthly honorarium of 50/ per month from the inception of the scheme, which was subsequently increased to 100/ per month with effect from February, 2001.
in the sub centers.
L. Dattu, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order in WA No.
3847/1993 before the High Court of Gauhati against the State of Assam, on the ground that the work of the Voluntary Female Attendant under the aforesaid scheme and that of the regularly appointed Ward Girls by the respondents therein was similar and, therefore, demanded parity in the pay scale as Ward Girls, which at that time was 900 1435 per month.
535/2001 and other companynected appeals and also the dismissal of the Review Petition No.
However, at the time of hearing of these appeals, the learned senior companynsel for the State of Assam companytended that the State of Assam was number arrayed as a party to the proceedings and without impleading the State and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the Division Bench ought number to have passed an adverse order against the State.
There were 5 five respondents in the petition, amongst them were the Union of India and the State of Assam.
