Gauhati High Court
Mohan Basfor vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 22 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010053162021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2008/2021
MOHAN BASFOR
S/O LATE BHARAT BASFOR, R/O FOREST COLONY, MAKUM, P.O. MAKUM,
DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786170
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06
2:THE CHIEF SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHABAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 37
4:CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
RESEARCH
EDUCATION AND WORKING PLANS
ASSAM
JALUKBARI
GUWAHATI 14
5:CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CIRCLE
ASSAM
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI 29
6:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
Page No.# 2/3
GOVT. T T AND S PLANT DIVISION
MAKUM
TINSUKIA 786170
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT
ASSAM FOREST GUARDS SCHOOL
MAKUM
TINSUKIA 78617
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 22.03.2021
Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the
petitioner's father, who was an employee in the Forest Department, Government of
Assam, died in harness on 23.10.2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted an
application on 12.12.2011 for compassionate appointment.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's case for compassionate
appointment was not considered by the DLC or the SLC. However, he has been
engaged as a Sweeper on casual basis and given the salary out of the maintenance
fund w.e.f. January, 2012.
The petitioner's prayer in the writ petition is for regularizing the service of the
petitioner, who has been working on casual basis since January, 2012.
Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for all the respondents.
In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others -Vs- Uma Devi (3)
and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that regularization
cannot be another mode of recruitment and as it was not permissible and accordingly
held that recruitment should be made as per the Rules. However, in paragraph 53 of
Page No.# 3/3
the said judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra), the Apex Court has allowed for one time
regularization of irregular appointment of persons, who had continued to work for 10
years or more, without the intervention of the orders of the Court as on the date when
the judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra) had been given.
Paragraph 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra) was clarified by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka -Vs- M.L. Kesari & others, reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein it held that the exception to the general principles against
regularisation, as provided in Uma Devi (3) (supra) could be done if the employee had
worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the protection of the
interim orders of the Court as on the date when the judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra)
was announced. The judgment of the Apex Court was announced in Uma Devi (3)
(supra) on 10.04.2006. However, the petitioner has been appointed on casual basis
only w.e.f. January, 2012 and, as such, the prayer for regularization of the petitioner's
service cannot be entertained by this Court.
In view of the above reasons, the petitioner's prayer for regularisation, being
unsustainable, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
