Ranjit Talukdar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 401 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010046082018




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/2014/2018

            RANJIT TALUKDAR
            S/O- LT DAYANANDA TALUKDAR, R/O- RUKMINI NAGAR, JEUTI PATH,
            KHANAPARA, GHY-22, DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD, DISPUR, GHY-6

            2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
             PWD (BUILDING) ASSAM
             GHY-3

            3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
             PWD
             GHY
             BUILDING CIRCLE-I
             GHY-1

            4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             P.W.D. P.C.C.
             DIVISION
             DISPUR
             GHY-

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. SHEELADITYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P W D

BEFORE Page No.# 2/2

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

07.02.2022

The petitioner, who was prosecuted as one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 160 (K)/2000 and was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years by the learned Ad-hock Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati under the judgment dated 31.12.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court under its judgment dated 24.04.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2004. Subsequent to this, the petitioner approached this court once again by WP(C) 3048/2004 claiming his reinstatement as well as other benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 20.09.2011 directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, it was made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any back-wages, but his pay shall be fixed notionally. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated. The present writ petition is filed claiming for back- wages though there was a clear direction in the earlier judgment of this court declaring that the petitioner will not be entitled to any back-wages.

Be that as it may, none appears for the petitioner on call. This writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Mr. R Dhar, learned standing counsel,PWD is present.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant