Gauhati High Court
Diganta Barman vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 6 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010102382020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3050/2020
DIGANTA BARMAN
S/O LT. PROFESSOR JOGENDRA NATH BARMAN, R/O HOUSE NO. 57,
ADJACENT TO IOCL OFFICE, KACHARIBASTI ROAD, ULUBARI,
GUWAHATI, PIN-781007, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM HOWEVER
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THE ADDRESS C/O MRS. MEERA DEKA HOUSE
NO. 7, BY LANE NO. 3, ANIL NAGAR, RAJGARH LINK ROAD, GUWAHATI,
PIN-781007, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.
REP .BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO ITS HONBLE PRIME MINISTER
OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011
2:THE GOVT. OF INDIA
DEPTT. OF SPACE
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA
INDIA
PIN-560231
REP .BY ITS SECRETARY
3:THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF INDIA
DEPTT. OF SPACE
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA
INDIA
PIN-560231
Page No.# 2/5
4:THE JOINT SECRETARY(PERSONNEL)
TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
DEPTT. OF SPACE
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA
INDIA
PIN-560231
5:THE NORTH EASTERN SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (NESAC)
DEPTT. OF SPACE
GOVT. OF INDIA
UMIAM
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
793103
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
6:THE DIRECTOR
NORTH EASTERN SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (NESAC)
DEPTT. OF SPACE
GOVT OF INDIA
UMIAM
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
793103
7:THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER
NORTH EASTERN SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (NESAC)
DEPTT. OF SPACE
GOVT OF INDIA
UMIAM
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
793103
8:PENUMETCHA LAKSHIMI NARASA RAJU
DIRECTOR
NORTH EASTERN SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (NESAC)
DEPTT. OF SPACE
GOVT OF INDIA
UMIAM
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
79310
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P PATHAK
Page No.# 3/5
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 06-01-2021
Heard Mr. A. Narzari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami,
learned counsel appearing for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
As per the case projected in the writ petition, the petitioner is working as Sr. Scientist/
Engineer posted at the Directorate of North Eastern Space Application Centre (NESAC) at
Shillong coming under the department of Space, Govt. of India. The petitioner claims to
have served the said establishment for more than 13 years. However, after the outbreak
of the pandemic Covid-19 and on account of the precarious health condition faced by him,
the petitioner returned to his home at Guwahati and had to resort to "work from home"
which was allowed by the department. However, subsequently, a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 11-06-2020 alleging unauthorized absence from service and
his salary was also stopped w.e.f. 20-04-2020. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing the present petition.
Mr. Narzari submits that during the pendency of this writ petition the respondents have
restored the salary payable to the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 8 is continuing
to harass the petitioner by his rude behavior. Bringing those subsequent developments on
record, the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit dated 11-12-2020, which is available
Page No.# 4/5
on record.
Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned departmental counsel submits that he is yet to receive
instruction on the additional affidavit. Learned departmental counsel has, however,
assailed the maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the the writ petition
would not be maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy.
In support of the above argument, Mr. Goswami has placed reliance of a Constitutional
Bench judgment of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of L. Chandra
Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and submits that the
petitioner be directed to approach the CAT, Guwahati.
Upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed
thereto, it prima facie appears that the dispute is pertaining to the petitioner's decision to
work from home, i.e. from Guwahati, although he is posted at Shillong. It further appears
that the decision of the petitioner is from the Covid prospective and in view of the
precarious health condition allegedly faced by him. It is a matter of common knowledge
that due to the outbreak of the pandemic, lives of citizens have been thrown out of gears
and therefore, it is possible that in a given situation, the petitioner also might have been
compelled to confine him to his residence at Guwahati due to apprehension pertaining to
health issue. Such being the position, I am of the view that the issues raised in the writ
petition would come within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover,
in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
that the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be excluded as such
measures would be unconstitutional. Whether a particular writ petition is to be
Page No.# 5/5
entertained on the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter of discretion of the
High Court. As such, I am not inclined to non-suit the petitioner merely on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy by directing him to approach learned CAT.
The plea regarding maintainability of the writ petition is, therefore, rejected.
The learned departmental counsel is, however, granted 03 weeks time to obtain
instruction and respond to the pleadings in the additional affidavit dated 11-12-2020 filed
by the petitioner.
Let this matter be listed again after 03 weeks.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
