Gauhati High Court
Bhimlalchauhan vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 16 July, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010076822021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3219/2021
BHIMLALCHAUHAN
S/O SRI RAMDEO CHAUHAN
VILLAGE KHERONI CHARIALI,
PO AND PS KHERONI, DIST WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, 782440
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY ELEMETARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DIPHU 782460
4:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION
KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
DIPHU
KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
78260
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
Page No.# 2/3
KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT CIRCLE
DIPHU 782460
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
WEST KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
AT HAMREN
78248
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
16.07.2021
Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District
Circle, the petitioner was appointed as a language teacher in the Indira Memorial Hindi
M E School. The order refers to a letter No. KAAC/Ele.Edn/Drop Out A.T/SIU/2017-
18/14 dated 21.10.2019 which relates to the petitioner being regularized as a dropped
teacher. The petitioner was apparently regularised as a dropped teacher pursuant to
the order dated 18.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 3076/2018.
3. It is specifically taken note of that in the said order it was not provided that the
petitioner would be entitled to his past services for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
The petitioner now refers to another judgment of this court dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C)
No. 3662/2009 wherein Clause vi of Paragraph 18, it had been provided that all such
appointments of dropped teachers would be prospective but will carry the benefit of
past services for the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits. By referring to the
said judgment dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 3662/2009 the petitioner institutes this
writ petition for a direction that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the past
services of the petitioner be also included.
Page No.# 3/3
4. If we entertain this writ petition and grant the relief sought for by the petitioner,
two implications would follow. One, it would amount to a modification of the earlier
order dated 18.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 3076/2018 to also include the benefit of past
service of the petitioner for pensionary benefits. The second implication would be that
in a situation where the stage of receiving pensionary benefits by the petitioner is yet
to be arrived, the petitioner seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus to also include
the past services for the pensionary benefits, meaning thereby that a writ is sought for
in respect of a future event that may take place inasmuch as the petitioner is still in
service.
5. From such point of view, it would amount to entertaining a writ petition against
an apprehended future violation of a legal right. Prima facie both the situations are not
included in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioner seeks an adjournment to examine the matter.
7. As prayed for, list after a month.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
