Hiren Ch. Das vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2329 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Hiren Ch. Das vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 27 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010250952019




                                                                 undefined

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/8155/2019

         HIREN CH. DAS
         S/O. LT. RANJIT DAS, R/O. VILL. BAHARA (RANJIA), P.O. AND P.S. RANJIA,
         DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354.


         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WATER
         RESOURCES, RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION, NEW
         DELHI-110001.

         2:THE CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION
          REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
          SEWA BHAWAN
          R.K. PURAM
          NEW DELHI-110001.

         3:THE BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD
          REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
          BASISTHA
          GUWAHATI-781029
          KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM.

         4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          BRAHMAPUTRA AND BARAK BASIN ORGANIZATION
          CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION
          REBEKKA VILLAGE
          LOWER LACHUMIERE
          SHILLONG-793001
          MEGHALAYA.

         5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER-II
                                                                               Page No.# 2/6


             BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD
             BASISTHA
             GUWAHATI-781029
             KAMRUP (M)
             ASSAM.

            6:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
             CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION
             JUNG
             ITANAGAR
            ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. B BHUYAN, MS R SAHIN,MS. L ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

For the Petitioner : Ms. B Bhuyan, Advocate.

       For the Respondents :          Ms. A Gayan, CGC.


       Date of Hearing            :   27.01.2025.


       Date of Judgment           :   27.01.2025.


                                          JUDGMENT & ORDER

The claim in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for arrear salaries for the period from 27.08.2017 to May, 2019.

2. I have heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents.

Page No.# 3/6

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in the Brahmaputra Board (Board) in the year 1983. Vide an order dated 08.09.2017, the petitioner was sought to be posted at Jang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As the petitioner had difficulties concerning his family, he had submitted a representation dated 12.09.2017 wherein he had preferred his posting to be made in Nalbari-Rangia Sector. However, the aforesaid request was not considered. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to join at Jang because of some error in writing his name in the order. It is submitted that while the name of the petitioner is "Hiren Ch. Das", in the transfer order, his name was written as "Haren Ch. Das". The petitioner has projected that because of this error, he was not allowed to join.

4. The petitioner had accordingly submitted representation dated 05.07.2018 to the Board followed by filing a writ petition, being WP(C)/4722/2018 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 03.08.2018 by directing the respondent Board to pass a speaking order. In terms of the direction of this Court, a Speaking Order was passed on 06.09.2018 whereby the Board had directed the petitioner to join at Jang. It is the case of the petitioner that when he had gone there, he was still not allowed to join for which, he approached this Court for the second occasion by filing WP(C)/1998/2019. During the adjudication of the said writ petition, a submission was made on behalf of the Board that certain developments for re-allocation of the personnel was made. On such submission, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to report to the Board and fresh orders of posting were to be passed. Consequent thereto, the Board had passed a fresh order of posting on 23.05.2019 placing him in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Guwahati Sub-Division.

5. Ms. B Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the intervening period of 27.08.2019 to May, 2019 his salaries have not been paid. It is Page No.# 4/6

submitted that the petitioner cannot be faulted with for not being allowed to join at Jang in spite of his best efforts.

6. In order to demonstrate that the petitioner had indeed gone to Jang to join his place of posting, he has filed an additional-affidavit on 28.08.2024 annexing a money receipt given by one India Tourist Counter, Baihata Chariali which is dated 18.09.2018. He has also annexed another slip to show a journey from Jang to Guwahati on 25.09.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021 and there being no provision for pension, the arrear salaries may be directed to be released to him. It is submitted that it is because of the fault of the respondent Board that the petitioner was deprived of discharging his duties in the aforesaid period for which he cannot be deprived of his salaries.

7. Per contra, Ms. Gayan, learned CGC has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2017 whereby the petitioner was posted at Jang, neither the petitioner reported at his new place of posting nor did he file any representation for any difficulty encountered. It is submitted that for the first time after almost a year on 05.07.2018, the representation was submitted following by filing of WP(C)/4722/2018. She has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 03.08.2018 by which the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, a Speaking Order was passed on 06.09.2018 directing the petitioner to join.

8. It is emphatically submitted that the petitioner did not go to join at Jang and the learned CGC has also categorically disputed the averments of the petitioner made in this regard. To fortify her submission, the learned CGC has drawn the attention of this Court to a communication dated 17.08.2018 of the Board wherefrom it appears that the petitioner, along with another employee who was posted at Jang did not report for Page No.# 5/6

duties till the said date. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 6, 8 and 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 06.01.2021 to contend that the petitioner had never gone to Jang for joining his place of posting.

9. It is submitted that when an employee, on his own volition prefers not to join his place of posting and discharge his duties, he would not be entitled to the salaries. It is submitted that in fact the matter was not taken in a very serious manner by the Board which otherwise would have entailed disciplinary proceeding.

10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on record have also been carefully examined.

11. The claim, as indicated above is for arrear salaries for the period from 27.08.2017 to May, 2019. The claim is based on certain averments made in the writ petition, namely, that pursuant to the transfer order dated 08.09.2017 transferring the petitioner to Jang (in Arunachal Pradesh) the petitioner had gone there to join in spite of which because of some error in his name, he was not allowed to join. The aforesaid averments have been disputed by the respondents in their affidavit. While the aspect of error in name, as indicated above may be there, the same error is a very minor error and even assuming that the same could be a factor not to allow the petitioner to joint at Jang as projected by him, the said projection cannot be countenanced in view of the letter dated 17.08.1018 from where it appears that the petitioner along with another employee had never gone to the place of posting at Jang for joining. This Court has also noticed that the aspect of the petitioner going to Jang for joining apart from categorically being denied in the affidavit, also appear to be unacceptable by the documents which have been annexed to the additional-affidavit. While one document gives the destination as Naharlagun, the other document indicates a journey from Page No.# 6/6

Jang to Guwahati. While Jang is an entirely different direction from Naharlagun, the document showing a journey from Jang to Guwahati also has a name as "Hiranchan Chandra Das which is not the projected name of the petitioner. In any case, the aforesaid aspects would come within the ambit of disputed questions of facts which a writ court cannot delve into.

12. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is left with no concrete materials which could have been projected by the petitioner to make a valid claim for the salaries for the period from 27.08.2017 to May, 2019. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. The writ petition is dismissed.

14. Cost made easy.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant