Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 13 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010066632018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2391/2018
SATYENDRA PATGIRI @ SATYEN PATGIRI AND 4 ORS.
S/O LT. BHOGIRAM PATGIRI
VILL AND P.O. BAMAKHATA
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
2: SAILEN PATGIRI @ SILEENDRA PATGIRI
S/O SRI GOPAL CH. PATGIRI
VILL- KHATAGURI (BAMAKATHA)
P.O. BAMAKATHA
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
3: SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR
S/O SRI HARGOBINDA TALUKDAR
VILL AND P.O. BAMAKATHA
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
4: SRI LABANYA KR TALUKDAR
S/O SRI HARGOBINDA TALUKDAR
VILL AND P.O. BAMAKATHA
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
5: SRI RANJAN TALUKDAR
S/O LT. MAHESWAR TALUKDAR
VILL AND P.O. BAMAKATHA
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
Page No.# 2/7
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
AMRITPUR PATH
GANESHGURI
GUWAHATI -05.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
DHUBRI DIVISION
DHUBRI
P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783301.
5:ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
DHUBRI SUB-DIVISION
DHUBRI
P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783301.
6:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
Page No.# 3/7
GOALPARA DIVISION
GOALPARA
P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN - 783001
7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BARPETA DIVISION
P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN - 781301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 13-06-2022
Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.
Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R.M. Das, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 8.
2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners were engaged as Work Charge
Khalashi on 22.05.1996 by the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Executive Engineer. As
they were not allowed to join their post due to some disturbance from the local
residents of Dhubri District, the petitioners' date of joining were extended by the
respondent authorities to 10.06.1996. The petitioners' counsel submits that
though the petitioners have been working under the establishment of the
Page No.# 4/7
respondent No. 4 since 10.06.1996, they have not been given their salary for
the last 20 (twenty) years.
3. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, this Court finds that his submissions are not in consonance with the
pleadings made in the writ petition and the annexures. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 & 5
of the writ petition goes to show that the petitioners were not allowed to join
their post in the establishment of the respondent No. 4 and due to which, some
of the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was
registered as C.R. No. 3648/1996.
4. The records of C.R. No. 3648/1996 have been perused and it is seen that
the petitioners had taken the stand therein that they were appointed by the
respondent No. 4 (Executive Engineer) on 22.05.1996. However, due to protest
being made by the local youth of the concerned District, the petitioners could
not join their post. On approaching the respondent No. 4, their date of joining
was extended upto 10.06.1996. The petitioners thereafter submitted their
joining report by submitting letters dated 10.06.1996. However, they could not
join the said posts and as such, they prayed that they should be given
protection and to accommodate them in suitable places as per their joining
report dated 10.06.1996. They also prayed that their salary should be paid from
10.06.1996.
5. The State respondents, including the respondent No. 4, submitted an
affidavit-in-opposition in C.R. No. 3648/1996, to the effect that no rights of the
petitioners had been violated and that all the averments made by the petitioners
were denied. It was denied that there was any disturbance or obstruction
Page No.# 5/7
caused by the local youths of the District which prevented the petitioners from
joining their post. It was also stated that the petitioners had requested for
extending their joining time on grounds of their own illness, illness of members
of their family, belated receipt of letter of appointment etc. It was due to the
above grounds that the date of joining was extended to 10.06.1996. The
respondents also stated that the sending of joining report by post cannot be
treated as joining a post. The affidavit also stated that the petitioners should
immediately join their respective posts as there was shortage of man power.
However, the petitioners had not reported for joining in their place of posting.
The respondents also stated that no complaint was lodged by the petitioners to
any law enforcing agency, complaining about the alleged obstruction that
prevented them from joining their place of posting. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the writ petition (C.R. No. 3648/1996) should be dismissed.
6. C.R. No. 3648/1996 was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated
05.06.1997 by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioners, if the petitioners had not joined and if there were vacancies
available. The Order dated 05.06.1997 passed in C.R. No. 3648/1996 is
reproduced below:-
"Heard Shri Uzir, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The persons herein are
work-charged Khalashi. They were appointed. Thereafter they were posted at
Goalpara and Barpeta Road. The persons who were posted at Goalpara they were
not allowed to join in their posts by the local youth. The ground taken in this writ
application is that the petitioners were not allowed to join by the local youth. But
Shri Sarma Baruah has produced before me the original letters submitted by them
on different dates. These will show that the ground mentioned in the writ
application is not correct.
Page No.# 6/7
On perusal of the application it will show that different petitioners took up
different pleas for not joining at their place of posting.
Be that as it may, considering the hardships of the petitioners, I direct that if
they are on today have not joined and if there were vacancies, their case may be
considered by the authorities.
Accordingly this writ application is disposed of."
7. The Order dated 05.06.1997 passed in C.R. No. 3648/1996, read with
paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the writ petition, goes to show that no further
appointment orders were issued to the petitioners. The Order dated 05.06.1997
passed in C.R. No. 3648/1996 clearly shows that the prayer of the petitioners
for payment of their salaries from 10.06.1996 was not granted by this Court, as
the petitioners had not joined their place of posting. The Order dated
05.06.1997 passed in C.R. No. 3648/1996 has attained finality as on date. As
such, the petitioners do not have a basis for claiming arrear salary, if they have
not been working. Further, the petitioners have approached this Court in the
year 2018, knowing fully well that the issue raised herein had already been
considered in C.R. No. 3648/1996 and their prayer had not been granted. It is
also noticed that this writ petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 3
(three) occasions, i.e., on 18.04.2018, 21.01.2019 & 19.08.2021 and restored
three times.
8. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that there is no merit
in the writ petition.
Page No.# 7/7
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
