Abhishek Bhattacharjee v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors. A

ORDER

24.04.2024 (Vijay

Bishnoi, CJ) These writ appeals are filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in WP(C) No.2988/2018 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The appellants have approached this Court by filing the above referred writ petition challenging the action of the respondents of discontinuing their contractual engagement. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the engagement of the appellants were for a temporary period and during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the period of engagement of the writ petitioners had already expired and no fresh engagement order was issued in favour of the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge has observed that the law is well settled that the court cannot direct the parties to enter into a fresh contract when the matter is governed by contractual liabilities. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in Ajay Kumar Haloi Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/GH/0309/2014.

¶2It appears that being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.12.2021 the appellants had preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge which came to be dismissed on 14.02.2023. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the review petition has observed that the cases relied upon by the appellants i.e. WP(C) No.1964/2020 (Sanjoy Kairi Vs. State of Assam and others) Page No.# 4/5 decided on 29.01.2021 and WP(C) No.8618/2018 ( Surojit Roy Vs. State of Assam and others) decided on 09.12.2020 are clearly distinguishable because in those cases the termination orders were stigmatic and were passed by the employer without providing any opportunity of hearing whereas, in the case of the appellants, the order of discontinuance of their contractual engagement cannot be said to be stigmatic.

¶3The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mrigen Kalita Vs. North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies Training and Research and others reported in 2012 (4) GLT 686 and has submitted that in similar situation this Court has granted indulgence and has set aside the termination order while treating them as stigmatic. The learned counsel has further submitted that the order of discontinuation of the appellants is stigmatic and therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ appellants.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order dated 14.06.2017 whereby the services of the appellants have been discontinued, we are of the view that the said order cannot be termed as stigmatic because the contractual engagement of the appellants has been discontinued on account of serious anomalies noticed in financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 regarding pending liability of material component of MGNREGA. It is clear that the order of discontinuation of contractual engagement of the appellants is not stigmatic. Hence, the judgments on which the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance are of no help to the Page No.# 5/5 appellants.

¶6Having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. The Writ Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010059862023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/159/2023 RAM CHANDRA PAUL S/O LATE ARUN CHANDRA PAUL, VILL.- SRIKONA, P.O. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM- 788004, TAPANG DEVELOPMENT BLOCK. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. B REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM- 788004. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SILCHAR. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TAPANG DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS TAPANG DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : WA/174/2023 ABHISHEK BHATTACHARJEE S/O- SRI SUBIR BHATTACHARJEE R/O 28 ARABINDA ROAD SUBHASH NAGAR P.O.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788004. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. A REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM-788004 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BINNAKANDI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BINNAKANDI DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. A Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM