Sankar Basfor vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 444 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010263362017




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/4972/2017

         SANKAR BASFOR
         S/O- LATE HAZARI BASFOR, R/O- UDALGURI TOWN, P.S AND DIST-
         UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 784509


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
         IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

         2:THE COUNCIL HEAD OF THE DEPTT.
          IRRIGATION
          BTC
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM

         3:THE SECRETARY
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM

         4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          DHANSIRI PROJECT DIVISION CANAL NO.1IRRIGATION UDALGURI
          BTAD
         ASSAM

         5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          DHANSIRI SUB-DIVISIONIRRIGATION
          UDALGURI
          BTAD
         ASSAM

         6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

             UDALGURI
             BTAD
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.K P GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

09.02.2022

Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R B Bora, learned standing counsel for the BTC, Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate and Ms. DS Neog, learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department.

By way of this writ petition two kinds of claims have been raised by the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner has claimed for regularization of his service against the post of sweeper allegedly lying vacant at the office of the Executive Engineer, Dhansiri Project Division, Irrigation, Udalguri. The second claim of the petitioner is that his father was working against the aforesaid vacant sanctioned post and the father of the petitioner had expired on 07.11.2005. After expiry of his father, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that his claim for compassionate appointment has not been decided till date. The BTC authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization has taken a stand that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri vide communication dated 25.05.2009 and the same was discussed in the meeting held on 13.12.2010. However, the BTC has not disclosed what happened on the said meeting of the DLC held on 13.12.2010.

Page No.# 3/3

Situated thus, this court under order dated 25.01.2022 asked Mr. SS Roy, learned State counsel to obtain instruction regarding the fate of the pending application of the petitioner before the DLC, Udalguri. When the matter was heard today, Mr. SS Roy has submitted the minutes of the meeting dated 13.12.2010 of the DLC. The said minutes reflect that the name of the petitioner was considered in the said meeting. From the proceeding it is found that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of comparative financial position and one Kamal Krishna Choudhury was recommended for appointment to the SLC. Such decision is not under challenged before this court by the present writ petitioner. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the merit of the said decision taken by the DLC in its meeting dated 13.12.2010. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the same if aggrieved.

So far relating to the claim of the petitioner for regularization, this court is not inclined to acede to such prayer in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court passed in WA 45/2014 (State of Assam vs. Upen Das) reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493. However, if the petitioner is having any right under the two orders being 08.03.2019 under No. FEC (II) 2014/413 and 03.10.2019 under No. FEC (II) 2014/414 issued in terms of paragraph 22 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment, the Irrigation Department may consider such claim and pass necessary order in this regard. If such claim is made by the petitioner, his case be considered within a period of three months from receipt of such claim.

This disposes the writ petition, however, no order as to cost. A copy of minutes of the meeting held on 13.12.2010 of the DLC, Udalguri is kept on record and marked as document 'X'.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant