GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has recently directed Assam's Agriculture Department to submit records of three specific letters issued in 2017 and 2018 to clarify the employment status of muster roll workers and the wages due to them. This directive is in response to a writ petition filed by 43 muster roll workers who claim unpaid wages from the Agriculture Department.
According to the petitioners, they were engaged in the Agriculture Department during the period 1993-96 and had been receiving regular salaries until 2004. However, after the state government leased out the farms where they worked, their employment continued under different Block Agriculture Officers and District Agriculture Officers, but without payment of wages since 2004.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The petitioners had previously approached the High Court with writ petitions, seeking orders to examine their claims. While a finding indicated that no authentic documents were available, it was acknowledged that records might have been lost due to floods. As a result, the claims were rejected through an order dated August 16, 2018, which is now under challenge in the current writ petition.
The petitioners presented documents showing that the Director of Agriculture admitted to their continuous service, indicating that they were due payment for their work. However, the Standing Counsel representing the Agriculture Department questioned the authenticity of these documents, alleging potential fabrication.
ALSO READ: Accused Can Be Exempted From Personal Appearance Before Bail, Says SC
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, who heard the case, instructed the Agriculture Department to verify the authenticity of the letter numbers DBR/Agri/MR/2017-18/48 and DBR/Agri/MR/2017-18/49, both dated January 9, 2018, and the letter number Agri/Esstt./8105/2014-15/231 dated December 28, 2017. The Agriculture Department is required to gather the original records and clarify any doubts concerning these documents.
Additionally, the Court made it clear that if allegations of fabrication are substantiated, appropriate legal action, including criminal proceedings, will be initiated. The case is set to be heard again on May 13.
