Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Assam Power Distribution ... on 14 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010021822022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/847/2022
HEMENDRA DEBNATH
S/O SRI HARI CHARAN DEBNATH
R/O TELIBASTI, HOJAI
P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
PIN-782435
2: SHRI DIPAK KUMAR BORA
S/O GANGA RAM BORA
R/O DHING
P.O. AND P.S. DHING
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782123
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM, PIN-781001
2:THE CHAIRMAN
SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
Page No.# 2/5
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
HOJAI ELECTRICAL DIVISION
APDCL
(CAR)
HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NAGAON ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
APDCL (CAR)
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782001
6:SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
APDCL
HOJAI
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78200
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 14-02-2022
Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard
Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL appearing for the respondents.
Page No.# 3/5
The two writ petitioners herein claim to be working as Meter Readers under the
respondent department. According to the petitioners, they have already rendered more
than 10 years of continuous service as temporary employees. The petitioners had also
recently participated in the selection process initiated for filling up the posts of Office-
cum-Field Assistant. However, when the result was declared on 10-02-2020, the
petitioners' names did not figure amongst the successful candidates.
Ms. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petitioners
have rendered long years of services. Therefore, her clients' case ought to have been
considered sympathetically by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners' is covered by the judgment
dated 23-02-2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020. Since the petitioners'
herein are similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020, hence, this writ
petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioners for regularization of their services.
Responding to the above, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has
argued that although there are directions issued by this Court to consider the case of the
employees for regularization of their services taking note of the long years of continuous
services rendered by them, yet, the conduct of the present petitioners is such that they
do not deserve such consideration.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the
sides and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears that expressing
grievance due to non-regularization of services of those employees who had rendered
Page No.# 4/5
more than 10 years of continuous service under the respondents, a number of employees
had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020 seeking a writ of
mandamus for consideration of their grievance.
Taking note of the grievances expressed in the writ petition, the learned Single
Judge had disposed of W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020 by the judgment and order dated 23-02-
2021 with following observations and directions:
"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 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.
11. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the
requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, we request the
respondent APDCL to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic
package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered
accordingly."
There is no wrangle at the bar that the writ petitioners herein are also similarly
situated and therefore, would be entitled to similar consideration as in case of the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020. It further appears from the submission of the
learned counsel that the departmental authorities have considered the case of the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020 who have rendered more than 10 years of service in
terms of the earlier directions issued by this Court. If that be so, there can be no
justifiable ground to deny the prayer made in the writ petition, insofar as the request for
Page No.# 5/5
consideration of their case in similar lines is concerned.
Situated thus, I dispose of this writ petition, at the stage of motion hearing, by
directing that the case of the petitioners be also considered in terms of the direction
issued by this Court vide order dated 23-02-2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1351/2020.
The aforesaid exercise be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible
but not later than 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the above observation this writ petition stands closed.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
