Ashok Kumar Das and 3 Ors v. The Union of India and 3 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010150732021 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4840/2021o ASHOKoKUMARoDASoANDo3oORSo S/OoLATEoNABINoDAS,oVILL.oTUPALIA,oP.O.oGERUA,oASHRAM,oDIST.o BASKA,oASSAM. 2:oPRAHLADoDAS oS/OoLATEoSONAoRAMoDAS oVILL.oMAJUSIRAL oP.O.oKHATIKYCHI oDIST.oNALBARI oASSAM. 3:oAJIToTAHBILDAR oS/OoLATEoGOBINDRAoTAHBILDAR oVILL.oNAMATI oP.O.oHATIoNAMATI oDIST.oNALBARI oASSAM. 4:oPRADIPoBUJARBARUA oS/OoLATEoPABITRAoNATHoBUJARBARUA oVILL.oPAROWA oP.O.oBARBARI oDIST.oNALBARI oASSAMo VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIAoMINISTRYoOFo WATERoRESOURCES,oSHARAMoSHAKTIoBHAWAN,oRAFIoMARG,oNEWo DELHIo100001 2:THEoCHAIRMAN oBRAHMAPUTRAoBOARD Page No.# 2/4 MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES GOVT. OF INDIA BASISTHA GUWAHATI PIN 781029 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES GOVT. OF INDIA BASISTHA GUWAHATI PIN 781029 ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION GOVT. OF INDIA BASISTHA GUWAHATI PIN 781029 ASSAM For the Petitioners : Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate. Ms. A. Das, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, Asstt. S.G.I.

- Before - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

16.07.2024. (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Page No.# 3/4 Guwahati in Original Application No.137/2016, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2) The petitioners had approached the CAT, Guwahati in the year 2015 claiming that they were engaged by the Brahmaputra Board as Casual Labourers way back in the year 1990 and 1992. However, the Brahmaputra Board has not taken any steps to confer temporary status to the petitioners and their subsequent regularization, as per the various Office Memorandums passed by the Central Government, dated 10.09.1993 and 11.12.2006.

(3) The CAT, Guwahati had disposed of the earlier Original Application No.325/2013, preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 01.12.2025, directing the Chairman, Brahmaputra Board to consider the case of the applicants judiciously after affording opportunity of hearing to them, regarding grant of temporary status and regularization to the petitioners. The Brahmaputra Board vide Speaking Order dated 17.03.2016, has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not meeting the criteria fixed by the Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. dated

10.09.1993, as they have not continuously worked as Casual Labourers with the Brahmaputra Board for 240 (two hundred and forty days).

(4) Being aggrieved with the said decision of the Brahmaputra Board dated

17.03.2016, the petitioners have approached the CAT, Guwahati again vide Original Application No.137/2016, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order by the CAT, Guwahati.

(5) The CAT, Guwahati has recorded a specific finding that from the record available, it can be gathered that the applicants were engaged from April, 2001 and they do not fulfill the criteria as stipulated in the O.M. dated 10.09.1993, Page No.# 4/4 because they have not completed one year as on date i.e. 240 (two hundred and forty days) or 206 (two hundred and six days) in a calendar year. The CAT, Guwahati has also rebutted the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that similarly situated persons were granted temporary status by observing that all those individuals were engaged since December, 1989 and they have fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the O.M. dated 10.09.1993 and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with those individuals.

(6) After attempting to argue the matter for quite sometimes, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to persuade us to take a different view, as has been taken by the CAT, Guwahati and has also failed to produce any proof/evidence to satisfy us that the petitioners were engaged prior to April, 2001, particularly from the year 1990 and 1992, as Casual Labourers by the Brahmaputra Board.

(7) In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The same is therefore dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant