Dulu Moni Talukdar vs The Assam Power Distribution ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 208 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010057442020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1892/2020

         DULU MONI TALUKDAR
         S/O- SRI BHARAT TALUKDAR, R/O- VILL- DHING RATNA NAGAR, P.O-
         DHING, P.S- DHING, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782123



         VERSUS

         THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-
         01, ASSAM

         2:THE CHAIRMAN
          SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
          BIJULEE BHAWAN
          PALTANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI- 781001

         3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
         APDCL
          BIJULEE BHAWAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI- 781001

         4:THE ASSTT MANAGER
          CHARAIBAHI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
         APDCL (CAZ)
          CHARIBAHI

         5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
          HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL
          HOJAI
          NAGAON
         ASSA
                                                                               Page No.# 2/3


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. B BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

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

21.01.2022 Heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the APDCL.

The petitioners have been working as Office cum Assistant under the respondent authorities and they pray fortheirabsorption in the APDCL.

In earlier batch of writ petitions, this court vide order dated 03.01.2022 including WP(C) 1241/2020 directed the followings:

"9. 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, Sate of Assam Vs. Upen Das and ors.

10. 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 Page No.# 3/3

also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered accordingly."

The petitioners herein come under the paragraph 9. Accordingly, they pray that they may be granted similar relief as has been granted in WP(C) 1241/2020 and other similar cases. The learned standing counsel, Mr. Choudhury submits that they will have no objection if the cases of the petitioners are directed to be considered as per paragraph 9 of the judgment passed in Sudipta Bhattacharjee Vs. The Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 5 Ors. and other connected cases.

In view of the aforesaid consensus, this court directs that the petitioners' cases be considered in terms of the paragraph 9 of the judgment in Sudipta Bhattacharjee (supra).

This disposes this writ petition.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant