Dewan Basfor v. The State of Assam and 10 Ors

ORDER

12.09.2024

¶1Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for he petitioner and Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent PHE Department and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no.2.

¶2By filing this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize his service in the Grade-IV post in view of the fact that other similarly situated persons such as the private respondents who had in fact entered much later than the petitioner in service have been regularized.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, i.e. the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, the same supports the case of the petitioner, as it is stated that the petitioner has been working on casual basis since 01.05.1993 and other persons similarly situated have been regularized, in terms of the approval given by the State Government. Page No.# 4/5

¶4The learned counsels appearing for the respondents on the other hand submit that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Upen Das, reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493, there is no scope of regularizing the service of the petitioner. The learned counsels submit that the Government of Assam had come up with an Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012 providing that there will no longer be regularization of Muster Roll or Work-Charged workers by treating supernumerary post. The same was however interfered with by the learned Single Judge, but was reversed by the Division Bench in Upen Das (supra). The learned counsels submit that only benefit which can be given to the petitioner would be only in terms of paragraph-22 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Upen Das (supra).

¶5Upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it only appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Upen Das (supra) and accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, insofar as his regularization is concerned. However, if the petitioner has not been receiving the minimum scale of pay in terms of paragraph-22 of the judgment under reference, the same should be given to him by the respondent authorities. In order to grant such benefit the respondents will be at liberty to make necessary verification and if the petitioner has not been granted any such benefit, the same should be given to him w.e.f. 01.08.2017.

¶6With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands Page No.# 5/5 disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010019862015 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5070/2015o DEWANoBASFORo S/OoLT.oSUTHARoBASFOR,oR/OoPURBANCHALoNAGAR,oHENGRABARI,oGHY- 36,oDIST-oKAMRUPoMETRO,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo10oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oPHEo DEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGHY-6,oASSAM 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oFINANCEoDEPTT. oDISPUR oGHY-6 3:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPHEoDEPTT. oHENGRABARI oGHY-36 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPHEoDEPTT. oGUWAHATIoDIVISION-II oGHY-21 5:THEoASSTT.oEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPHEoDEPTT. oDISPURoSUBoDIVISION oDISPUR oGHY-6 6:THEoSUPERINTENDINGoENGINEERoPHE PageoNo.#o2/5 oGUWAHATIoCIRCLE oBAMUNIMAIDAM oGHY-21 7:JAYANTIoSAUDo@oDEKA oPEON oO/OoTHEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPHE oP.oHENGRABARI oGHY-36 8:BUDDHESWARoBORO oPEON oO/OoTHEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPHE oP.oHENGRABARI oGHY-36 9:TIKARAMoBHATTARAI oCHOWKIDER oGRADE-IV oO/OoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPHE oSandWoDIVISION oBETKUCHI oGHY-35 10:HITESWARoDAS oCHOWKIDER oO/OoTHEoSUPERINTENDINGoENGINEER oPHE oGUWAHATIoCIRCLE oBAMUNIMAIDAM oGHY-21 11:MAHENDRAoBASFOR oPEON oGRADE-IV oO/OoTHEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPHE oP.oHENGRABARI oGHY-36 12:BIJAYoDEKA oCHOWKIDER oGRADE-IV oO/OoTHEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPHE Page No.# 3/5 HENGRABARI GHY-3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N K KALITA, MR.R TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, MS.A VERMA,MR.N D BHUYAN(R- 6,10&11),MR.J I BORBHUIYA,SC, P H E,MS.S BHATTACHARYYA(R- 6,10&11) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO