Gauhati High Court
Basanta Kr. Roy vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 19 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010007202012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3576/2012
BASANTA KR. ROY
S/O LATE SISHU RAM ROY, R/O BAR SADERI, P.O. BHOTANTA SADERI, P.S.
PATACHRKUCHI, DIST- BARPETA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME A DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME A
DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
GHY-7
6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BORDER
ASSAM
SRIMANTAPUR BHANGAGARH
GHY-32
Page No.# 2/4
7:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BORDER
HQ BORDER
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GHY-21
8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER
ASSAM
GHY-1
9:UNION OF INDIA
BEING REPRESENTED BY THE DY. SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PENSION and PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
19.09.2023.
Heard Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.R.
Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State
respondent.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the
respondent authorities to regularize the period of discontinuation from his
service which was earlier interfered with by the order dated 02.06.2010 passed
by this Court in WP(C) No.2362/2006, and the connected batch of Writ
Petitions. By the said order, the discontinuation was set aside but the back
wages were not ordered to be paid. Reinstatement of service of the petitioner
Page No.# 3/4
was also directed but subject to evaluation of medical fitness.
Similarly situated persons who had earlier approached this Court, being
aggrieved by certain orders passed by this Court had approached the Apex
Court and the Apex Court by the judgment and order dated 22.04.2009, in Civil
Rule No.7922/2002 (Md. Abdul Kadir vs. Director General of Police), reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 611, had interfered with such discontinuation and further directed
regularization of the people who are put in long years of services. The Appeal
was allowed by the Apex Court in part, with following directions:-
"(i) The circular dated 17.3.1995 is quashed. The appellants shall not be subjected to
annual terminations and re-appointments (subject to observations in para 8 above).
(ii) The benefit of this order will be available to other similarly situated ad hoc border
staff, even if they have not approached the court for relief. In view of the above, the
interlocutory applications for impleading are disposed of as having become infructuous.
(iii) This order will not however come in the way of ad hoc employees working as
Border staff, being subjected to any periodical medical examination or service review.
(iv) To assess their fitness and suitability for continuation."
Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
petitioner was allowed to continue with his services, he in the meantime,
superannuated in the year 2016. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court,
the petitioner approached this Court for a second time praying for grant of the
reliefs, as had been granted to other similarly situated persons by the Apex
Court, with further prayer to release of his back-wages, as discontinuation of
service order was interfered with by this Court, on the earlier round of litigation.
Mr. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
meantime in the year 2016, the petitioner superannuated from service, however
he has not been granted pension as had been granted to other similarly situated
persons. Mr. Tahbildar has referred to the Office Memorandum dated
21.01.2019, whereby Cabinet Decision taken by the State for granting
Page No.# 4/4
proportionate pension and other admissible pensionary benefits to ex-
servicemen like the petitioner, who had retired from the Assam Police Border
Organization, under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners (PIF) Scheme,
rendering more than 10 years but less than 20 years of service from their date
of initial appointment under the Scheme was relaxed as a special case and not
to be treated as a precedent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to the prayer made in
the Writ Petition, he also submits that the benefit of the Office Memorandum
dated 21.01.2019, be conferred on the petitioner, as he is similarly situated like
the other ex-servicemen who were engaged under the PIF Scheme and were
being given the benefits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the apprehension of the petitioner is that he has not been
granted his pensionary benefits because of non-regularization of his services for
the period he was discontinued from service and which discontinuation was
interfered with by this Court by the judgment and order dated 02.06.2010, in
WP(C) No.2362/2006 and other connected batch of Writ Petitions.
Mr. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he would
like to complete the updated instructions from his client to find out whether in
the meantime he has been granted any pension.
Mr. C.R. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam submits that he will also
endeavor to obtain the requisite instructions to place it before the Court.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed again on 17.10.2023.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
