Sambharu Roy @ Sambaru Roy v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

O R D E R

02.02.2023 [N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ (Acting)]

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 as well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, AG.

¶2The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5651/2022 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the claim for regularization of the appellant on the ground of delay.

¶3Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD has submitted that apart from the delay, the appellant is over-aged and, as such, his claim cannot be considered.

¶4On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had given his age wrongly as 60 years, though he is younger than that.

¶5Be that as it may, Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD submits that though the scheme is still in existence, the plea of the appellant cannot be considered on the ground of delay and over-age.

¶6We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the appellant had approached this Court for a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider his claim for regularization on the plea that some other similarly situated Muster Roll workers had been regularized. However, his case was not considered due to some mistake on the part of the authorities. Page No.# 3/3

¶7We do not wish to go into all these factual aspects at this stage inasmuch as we find that the writ petition was dismissed without affording any opportunity to the State Government to file affidavit but if the writ petitioner-appellant has rendered his service as Muster Roll worker for a long period of time and if the writ petitioner-appellant is eligible for regularization under the scheme, the authorities are under bounden duty to consider his claim for regularization of his service.

¶8Accordingly, we direct that the case of the appellant will be considered for regularization by the authorities provided he is eligible for regularization under the scheme irrespective of the delay in approaching this Court, if the scheme still continues and the appellant is still eligible to be considered. As to whether the appellant is eligible for regularization or not, is an exercise to be undertaken by the authorities by taking into consideration all the relevant records/documents without referring to the issue of delay.

¶9With the above observation and direction, we allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5651/2022.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010191812022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/311/2022o SAMBHARUoROYo@oSAMBARUoROY.o S/OoBHABENoRAY,oR/OoVILL-BAHALPUR,oBOROPARA,oP.O.-BAHALPUR,o DIST-DHUBRI,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORSo THROUGHoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENTo OFoASSAM,oPWD,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-781006 2:THEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oFINANCEoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-781006 3:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPWDo(N.H.oWORKS) oASSAM oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATI-781003 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPWDo(NH)oABHAYAPURIoCONSTRUCTIONoDIVISION oABHYAPURI oDIST-BONGAIGAON oASSAM 5:THEoACCOUNTANToGENERALo(IoANDoE) oASSAM oMAIDAMGAON oBELTOLA oGUWAHATI-3o Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD B E F O R E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA