Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Assam Power Distribution ... on 24 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010021832022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/848/2022
GOUTAM DEKARAJA AND 11 ORS.
SON OF LATE NANDARAM
DEKARAJA
R/O APDCL OFFICE COLONY, HOJAI, P.O. HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-
782435
2: SRI KISHORE KR. BORO
SON OF LATE TOPESWAR BORO
HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
3: SRI CHOITANYA RAY
SON OF LATE CHITTA RANJAN RAY
R/O VILL- MATIKHOLA
P.O. SINGARI BASTI
HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
4: SRI JITEN SAINARY
SON OF LATE BISHARAM SAINARY
R/O VILL- HOJAI DAKHIN BIDYANGAR
HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
5: SRI JATIN DAS
Page No.# 2/6
SON OF JEEBAN DAS
R/O VILL- DIMARUGURI
P.O. DIMARUGURI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
6: SRI RINKU BORAH
SON OF LATE SUSHIL CH. BORAH
HOJAI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
P.O.HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
7: SRI MADHU SUDHAN BHUYAN
SON OF LATE BIRBAL BHUYAN
R/O VILL- DAKHIN GOLAGHALIA BASTI
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
8: SRI MITHUN DAS
SON OF LATE MOHANLAL DAS
R/O VILL- DANGARIBARI
P.O. HOJAI
DIST.HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
9: SRI HARERAM SAHU
SON OF SIBAMONI SAHU
R/O VILL- RAMPUR
P.O. AMTOLA
P.S. HOJAI
DIST.HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
10: SRI RATAN CHANDA
SON OF ROMANI MOHAN CHANDRA
P.O. TLE BOSTI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
Page No.# 3/6
11: MD. MOCKBUL HUSSAIN
SON OF LATE MOHAMMED ALI
R/O PACHIN NILBAGAN
P.O. NILBAGAN
DIST.HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435
12: SRI DULAN DAS
SON OF CHUNILAL DAS
R/O SILIGURI BASTI
P.O. SILIGURI BASTI
DIST.NAGAON
ASSA
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
PALTAN BAZAR
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
Page No.# 4/6
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
24.05.2023
Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bora, learned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned
Standing Counsel, APDCL appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners herein are working as Sahayak/Meter Readers under the Hojai
Electrical Sub-Division of the APDCL. Aggrieved by the fact that their services
have not been regularised till today, the instant writ petition has been filed.
By referring to the judgment and order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.1351/2020 Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners submits that although her clients case would not come within the
Page No.# 5/6
purview of the aforesaid judgment, in so far as the relief granted in respect of
Sahayak/Meter Readers who have completed more than 10 years of
continuous service is concerned, yet, in view of the observation made in
paragraph 11 of the judgment requiring the respondent authorities to also
consider the case of those Sahayak/Meter Readers who have not completed
10 years of continuous service so as to find out a suitable economic package
for them, this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent
authorities to bestow appropriate consideration on the case of the writ
petitioners as well.
Responding to the above, Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL
submits that the writ petitioners herein are not eligible for consideration even as
per the observations made in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment.
Be that as it may, in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2021
the learned Single Judge has made the following observation :-
"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."
The above observation clearly goes to show that the respondents have been
asked to suitably consider the cases of those Sahayak/Meter Readers who are
not able to satisfy the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years,
for extending a suitable economic package to them. On such consideration,
whether the petitioners or any of them would be entitled to any relief, is a
matter of factual verification, which would depend on the representation and
Page No.# 6/6
the documents furnished by the petitioners. However, what is apparent is that
even if the petitioners have not satisfied the requirement of continuous service
of 10 years, even then, their case would deserve some consideration by the
APDCL authorities albeit, not on equal footing with those who have completed
10 years of continuous service.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claims
made in the writ petition, this petition is disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the
observation made in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated
23.02.2021 as quoted above. Facilitating the above, the petitioners to submit
proper representations along with supporting documents before the
respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from today, by enclosing a
certified copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, as directed above,
the respondents will examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the
observation made in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated
23.02.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a further period
of three months thereafter.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
