Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3218 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 17 February, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010252852024




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:1611

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/6358/2024

         PINTU DAS
         SON OF PONKAJ KUMAR DAS,
         RESIDENT OF CHIRING CHAPORI SANTOSHI MAA PATH,
         P.O. AND P.S.- DIBRUGARH,
         DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
         AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN MISSION
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI- 781019
         ASSAM.

         3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          DIBRUGARH
          DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM.

         4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MISSION
         CO-ORDINATOR
          SSA
          DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM.

         5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
          DDC
                                                                     Page No.# 2/6

             DIBRUGARH CUM DEEO/ DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
             DIBRUGARH
             ASSAM.

            6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
             KHOWANG BLOCK
             DIBRUGARH
            ASSAM.

            7:THE BLOCK MISSION CO-ORDINATOR
             LAHOAL BLOCK
            AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN MISSION
             LAHOAL
             DIBRUGARH
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R DHAR, J DAS,MR N N UPADHYAYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM,SC, SSA




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                         ORDER

Date : 17-02-2025

Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 & 7 as well as Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 6.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 29.06.2024 issued by the Inspector of Schools (respondent No. 5), which is addressed to the Block Elementary Education Officer (respondent No. 6), whereby the petitioner is to be kept away from all responsibilities of a Block Accountant as a departmental process is going on. The petitioner is also challenging the letter dated 29.10.2024 issued by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner, informing him that the contractual agreement executed with the SSA had lapsed on 30.09.2024 and Page No.# 3/6

the same was not going to be renewed beyond 30.09.2024.

3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had been appointed as a Block Accountant under the Block Mission Co-ordinator under the Lahoal Block, vide order dated 21.02.2011. However, he was issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 by the respondent No. 5, regarding the complaint from a Head Teacher that he had taken money in the name of settlement of Bank Account and Cask Book for audit purposes of the Schools. He was accordingly asked to refrain from doing such activities and to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

4. In reply to the show cause notice dated 31.05.2024, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 03.06.2024, stating that it was true that the complainant had transferred some money to his account through gpay. However, he had not demanded the money to purchase the cash book for audit purchase and the complainant had willingly paid some money into his account, without his knowledge. The petitioner thereafter stated that he apologised for the mistake and agreed that he would be more alert in the future. He assured the respondent No. 5 that such incidents would never happen again in the future and requested the respondent No. 5 to reconsider the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against him.

5. The petitioner in a further letter dated 11.11.2024 issued to the respondent No. 5, stated that he had mistakenly stated in his reply dated 03.06.2024 that the complainant had transferred some money through gpay to his account. However, the said amount has been transferred by the complainant in the bank account of the petitioner's wife.

Page No.# 4/6

6. The petitioner's counsel prays that the respondents should be directed to extend the period of contractual engagement of the petitioner and pay the arrear salary of the petitioner.

7. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the SSA and Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 6 submit that as the petitioner's contractual period had expired on 3.09.2024, there was no reason to extend the contractual period of the petitioner.

8. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the SSA further submits that as the petitioner had confessed that the complainant's money has been transferred to his account vide letter dated 03.06.2024 and later clarified that the said amount had been transferred to his wife's account vide a subsequent letter dated 11.11.2024, there was no infirmity in the State respondents not extending the contractual engagement of the petitioner. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel further submits that the SSA has the right to terminate the services of the petitioner, if he is found to have indulged in some misconduct and misappropriation.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

10. The petitioner has admitted to the fact that money had been transferred to his account by the complainant, which was later clarified to be his wife's account. This is admitted by him in his letters dated 03.06.2024 and 11.11.2024. The contractual agreement of the petitioner had also lapsed on30.09.2024 and the same was not renewed since then. This Court in Ajoy Kumar Haloi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in (2014) 3 GLT 420 held that irrespective of the question as to whether the termination of the Page No.# 5/6

services of the petitioner is illegal or not, the core question to be determined is whether the writ petition is overtaken by time and has, ipso facto, becomes infructuous. This Court further held that the period of engagement of a contractual employee cannot be extended by the Court, as the legitimate function of the State respondents cannot be usurped if there was any breach of contract in the termination of the service of the petitioner, it may give rise to a cause of action for damages/compensation, for which the remedy available is a civil suit and not a writ petition.

11. In the case of GRIDCO Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors., reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16 the Apex Court has held that though a writ Court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality with respect to termination of a contractual engagement, judicial review cannot extend to acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the armchair of the administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ Court would do well to respect the decision under challenge.

12. In the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar , reported in (2011) 15 SCC 180, the Apex Court has held that when the appointment was for a fixed period of 3 (three) years, no relief beyond the period could have been given by the Tribunal or the High Court.

13. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High court Page No.# 6/6

mentioned above, there is no ground for this Court to direct the State respondents to extend the period of contract of the petitioner beyond the contract period. The question of extension of the petitioner's contractual period is essentially the discretion of the authorities concerned. If the petitioner is aggrieved that he is entitled to some damages, he may approach the Civil Court. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner's contractual period was up till 30.09.2024, the State respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his arrear salary for the period till 30.09.2024.

14. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant