Page No.# 1/4 vs The Assam Power Distribution ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 529 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010021812022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/904/2022

         SHANKAR DAS AND 2 ORS.
         S/O LATE AJIT DAS
         R/O VILL- GOLAGHATIA BASTI
         P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI
         DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
         PIN-782435

         2: SRI LAKHI KANTA TALUKDAR
          S/O PRABIN TALUKDAR
         HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
          R/O RANGCHALI DALANI
          P.O. BEHALI
         DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI
         ASSAM
          PIN-7884176

         3: SUNIL MOZUMDAR
          S/O SRI PRAN BALLAV MOZUMDAR
         HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION

         R/O NANDLALPUR
         P.O. DIMRUPAR
         DIST. HOJAI
         ASSAM

         PIN-78243

         VERSUS

         THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 5 ORS.
         REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
         BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781001.

         2:THE CHAIRMAN
                                                             Page No.# 2/4


             SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
             APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL
             BIJULEE BHAWAN
             PALTANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM

            PIN-781001

            3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL)
             BIJULEE BHAWAN
             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
                                                                                         Page No.# 3/4




                                     BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                              ORDER

Date : 15/02/2022

Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury,

learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents.

The three writ petitioners herein, claim to have served the APDCL for period covering

between 15-20 years as temporary employees. The grievance of the petitioners is that their

services have not been regularized till today. Hence, this writ petition.

Ms. Bhuyan submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgement and order

dated 23/02/2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No, 1351/2020 and, therefore, the writ petition

be disposed of with a similar direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioners.

It appears that by the order dated 23/02/2021 passed in WP(C) No. 1351/2020, the

learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition preferred by a number of similarly situated

employees who had rendered more than10 years of service with a direction upon the respondents

to consider their case for regularization. The operative part of the order dated 23/02/2021 is

extracted herein below, for ready reference :-

"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 at least 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 Page No.# 4/4

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."

Since there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are also similarly situated and

deserve similar consideration in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 23/02/2021

passed by this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, I dispose of the writ

petition at the stage of motion hearing by issuing a direction upon the respondents to consider

the case of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid order dated 23/02/2021 passed by this

Court.

The writ petition stands closed.

The exercise, as directed, be concluded as expeditiously as possible but not later than six

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

JUDGE sukhamay

Comparing Assistant