Pranjit Kr. Das and 3 Ors, v. The State of Assam and 8 Ors,

ORDER

13.05.2024

Heard Shri M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam as well as Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC.

¶2The claim of the petitioners is with regard to their proper fitment in the Gradation List of Junior Assistant and a fair consideration for their promotion to the higher grade of Senior Assistant.

¶3Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset has submitted that from the materials placed on record, the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have already been considered and promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and therefore, the present claim is with regard to the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 only.

¶4It is submitted that while the BTAD was created, there were 83 numbers of villages which fell outside the said BTAD and the petitioners who were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon were mainly entrusted with works pertaining to the aforesaid 83 numbers of villages. However, in December, 2013, the Head of Account was transferred to BTAD. Though a hearing was conducted in which the petitioners had filed their objections and there was also a proposal in a meeting of the Committee on 25.06.2014 to create new Revenue Circle, the benefits of placing the petitioners in their proper position in the Gradation List and subsequent appointments Page No.# 4/5 were not given.

¶5It is contended that the names of the petitioners are present in the Gradation List dated 28.06.2014 and a selection committee was also constituted for promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant. Reliance has also been placed upon a communication dated 25.08.2014 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon to the Principal Secretary, BTC to include 8 numbers of Junior Assistant in the Gradation List of the BTAD with due regard to their seniority. As observed above, the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have already been promoted and the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for a similar treatment for the petitioner nos. 3 & 4.

¶6Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned State Counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 5 on 15.12.2014 has however submitted that the appointment order of only the petitioner no. 1 has been annexed and as per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioners nos. 1 & 2 were appointed on 19.06.1990 which was before the creation of the BTAD whereas the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 were appointed on 03.03.2008, i.e., after creation of the BTAD and therefore, the cases of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 cannot be held to be at par with the petitioners nos. 1 & 2.

¶7The learned State Counsel has however clarified that the names of the petitioners nos. 3 & 4 are included in the Gradation List of the BTAD in terms of the letter dated 25.08.2014 by granting proper seniority as per their dates of appointment.

¶8Ms. R.B. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC while endorsing the submissions of the learned State Counsel has informed this Court that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent nos. 3, 6, 8 & 9 on 08.02.2018. It is reiterated that the mode of appointment of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 is different from that of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 and in fact a common writ petition could not have been filed.

¶9Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder has Page No.# 5/5 submitted that the confirmation order of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 in the year 2013 is by the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon.

¶10Upon hearing the learned counsel and on examination of the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the appointments of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were in the year 1990 which is much prior to the creation of the BTAD whereas appointment of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 were on 03.03.2008 i.e., after creation of the BTAD.

¶11This Court has also been informed that in the common Gradation List prepared by the BTAD, the names of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are included.

¶12Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing that based upon the seniority of the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 qua their dates of initial appointed on 03.03.2008, their names are to be properly placed in the Gradation List and in the event of any promotional exercise to the next higher post of Senior Assistant, their cases are to be duly considered on the basis of their seniority, in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010258642014 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4901/2014o PRANJIToKR.oDASoando3oORS,o S/O-oLT.oPARAMESHoDAS,oR/O-oWARDoNO.o3,oBIJNIoTOWN,oP.O.-oBIJNI,oDIST.-o CHIRANG,oBTAD,oASSAM. 2:oSANDESWARoBARMAN oS/O-oBIDDESWARoBARMAN oR/O-oWARDoNO.o3 oBIJNIoTOWN oP.O.-oBIJNI oDIST.-oCHIRANG oBTAD oASSAM. 3:oSANJEEBoPAULoCHOUDHURY oS/O-oLT.oSITESHoRANJANoPAUL oR/O-oWARDoNO.o3 oABHAYAPURI oP.S.oandoDIST.-oBONGAIGAON oASSAM. 4:oAMINULoISLAMoKHANDAKAR oS/O-oAHMEDoALIoKHANDAKAR oVILL.-oNO.o3oSALABILA oP.O.-oSALABILA oDIST.-oBONGAIGAON oASSAMo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoando8oORS,o THROUGHoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oREVENUEoANDoD.M.o DEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGHY-o6. 2:THEoDIRECTORoOFoLANDoRECORDSoANDoSURVEYSoETC. Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI. 3:THE DIRECOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC. BTC KOKRAJHAR. 4:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O. P.S. and DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BTC BODOFA NAGAR KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783370. 7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CHIRANG AT KAJALGAON P.O.- KAJALGAON DIST.- CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM. 8:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER C BIJNI P.O. P.S. - BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM. 9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BIJNI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. and P.S.- BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG BTAD Page No.# 3/5 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI