Hasna Bhanu vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3073 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010195322021




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/6186/2021

         HASNA BHANU
         D/O LATE BABUR ULLAH SK
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALMARA PART I, PO AND PS SALMARA DIST
         SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM, 783135



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR
         GUWAHATI 06

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

         3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 06

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          SOUTH SALMARA
          MANKACHAR P.S
          PO HATSHINGIMARI
          DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
         ASSAM
          783135

         5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
                                                                      Page No.# 2/4

             SOUTH SALMARA REVENUE CIRCLE
             PS AND PO HATSINGIMARI
             DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
             ASSAM
             78313

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M U MONDAL

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                             BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                        ORDER

24.11.2021

Mr. K Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner's service as a contingent sweeper should be regularized in terms of the OM dated 27.06.2013 issued by the Government of Assam, Finance (EC-II) Department.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as a contingent sweeper on 05.11.2001 in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) South Salmara, Mankachar Sub-Division Hatsingimari.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the OM dated 27.06.2013, the petitioner's service can be regularized.

4. Mr. D Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. J Handique, Page No.# 3/4

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner's case cannot be regularized, inasmuch as, the petitioner is apparently a contingent sweeper. Secondly, in terms of the OM dated 27.06.2013, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Paragraph 2 of the OM dated 27.06.2013 states as follows:'

"2. The State Government will now like to take the "One time measure" for regularization of those workers as referred to in paragraph 53 of the orders in Uma Devi's case readwith M.L. Kesari's case, whereby exception was curved out to regularize all employees who fulfill the following three conditions:

(i) Who have been working continuously for 10 years or more as on 10.04.2006 i.e., the date of passing of the judgment in Uma Devi's case without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal.

(ii) Who have been engaged against sanctioned vacant post.

(iii) Who have requisite qualification to hold the post."

7. As is clear from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not been working for more than five years as a contingent sweeper as on 10.04.2006. In view of the above reason, the OM dated 27.06.2013 is not applicable to the petitioner's case. Further, the petitioner being a contingent sweeper, the OM dated 27.06.2013 is not Page No.# 4/4

applicable in respect of the petitioner.

8. In view of the reasons stated above, there being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant