Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5026 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010013912016




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2480/2016

         KHAGENDRA CHANDRA ROY and ANR.
         S/O. LT. UPENDRA BISWAS

         2: SRI KAMAL CHANDRA BISWAS

          S/O. LT. UPENDRA BISWAS
          BOTH ARE R/O. DHUBRI TOWN
          WARD NO. 16A
          P.O. BIDYAPARA
          P.S. and DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH
         ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

          PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
          HENGRABARI
          GHY.-36
          DIST. KAMRUP M
          ASSAM.

         3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
          DHUBRI DIVISION
          DHUBRI
          DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM.
                                                                    Page No.# 2/6

            4:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
            TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             FINANCE DEPTT.
             DISPUR
             GHY.-06.

            5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

             ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
             R.G. BARUAH ROAD
             GHY.-05

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.P P BARUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Date : 19-12-2022

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the PHED Department, Government of Assam, Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 being the authorities under the Finance Department, Government of Assam and Ms. J Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the authorities under the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, the AUWSSB)

2. The two petitioners herein namely Khagendra Chandra Roy and Kamal Chandra Biswas were appointed as a Muster Roll workers in the Dhubri PHED as Page No.# 3/6

per the order of the Public Health Engineer respectively dated 29.03.1988 and 06.07.1989. Be that as it may, in the year 1990, the two writ petitioners were placed on deputation with the AUWSSB and accordingly they joined the AUWSSB, Dhubri in the year 1990. By the order of the Managing Director of the AUWSSB dated 10.02.2006, both the writ petitioners were regularised and appointed temporarily until further order(s) as LDA-cum-Typist in the scale of pay of Rs.2890-60-3490-90-3670-EB-90-4480-120-5200/- per month and accordingly continued to serve as LDA-cum-Typist as regular employees of the AUWSSB.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the office order dated 05.04.2011 of the Managing Director of AUWSSB by which it has been provided that in compliance of the orders passed in WP(C)No.4367/2006 as well as the orders passed by the Government of Assam in the AUWSSB and the PHED and as approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Assam as per the Government letters dated 09.03.2011, 17.03.2011, 23.02.2011 and 28.01.2011, the employees of the PHED working in the AUWSSB as per the approved list enclosed therein were released to join their parent department i.e. PHED on and from 05.04.2011.

4. We have noticed that the impugned order of reversion dated 05.04.2011 has been passed by the Managing Director, AUWSSB by stating it to be in compliance of an order passed in WP(C)No.4367/2006 and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the referred order in WP(C)No.4367/2006 is the order dated 08.04.2011 passed therein. Upon perusal of the order dated 08.04.2011 passed in WP(C)No.4367/2006, it is discernible that in course of hearing of the said writ petition, a particular letter was produced which indicated that there Page No.# 4/6

was a requirement of the PHED for its employees on deputation to other departments to be reverted back to the parent department. Accordingly, pursuant to such requirement, the petitioners had been reverted back to their parent department in PHED by the order impugned dated 05.04.2011. In other words, it is the stand of the respondents that the order impugned dated 05.04.2011 was passed by the Managing Director AUWSSB in pursuance of the requirement that the employees of PHED who were on deputation with the AUWSSB are to be reverted back to the parent department. In the instant case, it is taken note that although initially the two writ petitioners were appointed in the PHED and subsequently deputed to AUWSSB, but by later orders dated 10.02.2006 of the Managing Director of AUWSSB both the writ petitioners were regularised in the AUWSSB.

5. When an employee from the parent department is on deputation to the deputed department and in the deputed department the person concerned is regularised, under the law, it has to be understood that the employee on deputation was absorbed in the deputed department. Under the law, once an employee on deputation from the parent department is permanently absorbed in the deputed department, the employee concerned severs his employer and employee link with the parent department and from such stage onwards becomes an employee under the deputed department.

6. In the factual matrix of the present case, as indicated above, upon the petitioners being permanently absorbed in the AUWSSB by the orders dated 10.02.2006, they severed their earlier employer employee relation with the parent department i.e. the PHED and from such date onwards they became the Page No.# 5/6

employees of the deputed department i.e., the AUWSSB. As the petitioners severed their employer employee relation with the PHED and became employees under the AUWSSB from 10.02.2006 onwards, we examine as to whether the requirement of PHED that the employees of PHED on deputation with AUWSSB are to be reverted back is also applicable in the case of the present petitioners.

7. Admittedly, the requirement of the PHED department to have their employees who are on deputation with AUWSSB to be reverted back, which had also been taken note in the order dated 08.04.2011 in WP(C)No.4367/2006, is applicable in respect of such employees of the PHED who are on deputation with AUWSSB. But once an employee who was earlier on deputation from PHED to AUWSSB is regularised and permanently absorbed in AUWSSB, as they would lose their status of being employee under the PHED from such date onwards, we are of the view that the requirement of the employees of the PHED on deputation to AUWSSB to be reverted back to the parent department i.e. PHED would be inapplicable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of such conclusion, the order dated 05.04.2011 of the Managing Director stands set aside in respect of the present writ petitioners.

8. At the end of the hearing, it is stated by Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No.2 Kamal Chandra Biswas had died. Ordinarily, upon the petitioner No.2 being no more during the pendency of a petition, the petition itself would have abated in respect of such petitioner, but in the present writ petition, the issue raised remained alive to be decided in respect of the petitioner No.1, although the Page No.# 6/6

petitioner No.2 may have died in the meantime, and as the two writ petitioners are similarly placed for all purpose and the decision being primarily on the question of law, inspite of the writ petition having been abated in respect of the petitioner No.2, the decision rendered on the question of law would also be applicable in respect of the petitioner No.2.

9. Accordingly, the respondents in the AUWSSB are required to take note of the decision rendered in this order in respect of the status of the employment of the petitioners and accordingly pass appropriate orders. In doing so, as the petitioner No.2 is no more, the consequence of such benefits if so arises may be made applicable to the legal heirs of petitioner No.2.

10. This judgment is delivered on the facts as placed before the Court which are indicated in the judgment itself. If the records maintained by the respondents reveal the service conditions of the petitioner in any other manner beyond the facts as placed before the Court, liberty would remain with the respondents to pass any order as may be advisable under the law.

11. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant