Gauhati High Court
Sanjoy Dey vs The Assam Power Distribution Co ... on 25 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010164732021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5532/2021
SANJOY DEY
R/O. HOUSE NO.15, LANE NO.3, AZAD HIND ROAD, P.O. VIVEKANANDA
ROAD, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788007.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD AND 4 ORS
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-
781001.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER
SILCHAR REVENUE ZONE
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
SILCHAR
CACHAR.
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR/BADARPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
CAR
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 25-10-2021
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
APDCL.
2. The petitioner was engaged as a outsourced dispatcher of monthly Energy
Bill of consumers in the Silchar Electrical Sub-division, Assam of the erstwhile
Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) by an order dated 05.02.1997. Similarly
situated persons in the ASEB presently APDCL, had instituted WP(C) 1351/2020
seeking for a direction for being regularized.
3. In WP(C) 1351/2020 an order dated 23.02.2021 was passed deciding the
prayer of the petitioner therein for regularizing their services. In paragraph-10
of the order dated 23.02.2021, the following as extracted was passed:-
"10.Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of
the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more
than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were
working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made
for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked
for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10
years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of
providing them the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise
Page No.# 3/4
payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be
consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014"
4. The writ petitioner in this petition states that because of certain illness of
his mother who subsequently died he could not approach this Court earlier by
way of writ petition and seeks for a similar relief as provided in paragraph-10 of
the order dated 23.02.2021 in WP(C) 1351/2020.
5. It is stated that in the order dated 23.02.2021, three different reliefs were
granted considering the total tenure of service rendered by the writ petitioners
therein by classifying them to be persons who had served for more than 10
years, those who had served for a period less than 10 years and others.
6. In the instant case, it is stated that as on the date of the judgment of
Secretary, State Of Karnataka and Ors., -vs- Umadevi And Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner had served for a period of 9 years and 10 months
which is short by two months from the required period of 10 years.
7. The petitioner in this petition seeks for a similar relief. Mr. H.K. Sarma,
learned counsel by taking into consideration the similarity of the writ petitioner
with the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1351/2020 agrees to the proposition of Mr.
K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for a similar relief as provided in
paragraph-10 of the order dated 23.02.2021.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of requiring the respondents in
the APDCL to examine the claim of the petitioner. If the authorities upon
condoning the shortage period of a two months consider him to be an employee
who had served 10 years , the relief granted in paragraph-10 of the order dated
23.02.2021 be given to the petitioner and if the authorities after examining is of
the view that the period of two months cannot be condoned, the other relief
Page No.# 4/4
provided in paragraph 10 may be provided to the petitioner.
In terms of the above, the petition is allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
