Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2234 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010030872022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/4350/2022

         MD. MAINUL HOQUE AND 2 ORS
         S/O LT. MD SURUJ JAMAL, VILL-JOGIPARA, P.O.-BALABARI, P.S.-DHULA,
         DIST-DARRANG (ASSAM)

         2: MD. SURHAB ALI
          S/O ABDUL KHALEQUE
         VILL- NO 2 GALANDI
          P.O.-GALANDI
          P.S.-KHARPETIA
          DSIT-DARRANG
         ASSAM

         3: MD NIZAM UDDIN AHMED
          S/O NUR MAHAMMAD HUSSAIN
         VILL-GRANDLAND BAGICHA
          P.O.-BHAKATPARA
          P.S.-DHULA
          DIST-DARRANG (ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
         ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
          JURIPAR
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-781037
         ASSAM

         3:DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                                         Page No.# 2/3

             DARRAN

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR MINTU SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.




                            BEFORE
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                        ORDER

28.06.2022

Heard Mr. M Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners claim for a direction to the respondent authorities in the P & RD Department to frame a scheme for regularization of the services of the petitioners as Tax Collector/Peon in the Panchayati Raj Institutions.

3. On a question being raised, as to what legal right an employee has seeking for a direction to the employer to frame a scheme for regularization no answer is forthcoming. On the other hand, Mr. M Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners are atleast entitled to the benefits provided in the Judgment dated WA No.45/2014. If that is so, the writ petition appears to be misconceived.

4. In the circumstance, the petitioners seek not to further press with this writ Page No.# 3/3

petition in the present form with liberty to file afresh.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands closed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh, if so advised.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant