Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/55 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 16 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/55
GAHC010128532023
2025:GAU-AS:12653
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3422/2023
THE STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926, ADDRESS-
PALTAN BAZAR, K.C. SEN ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781008, DISTRICTS-
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI GUNAJIT KUMAR
PATHAK
2: SRI GUNAJIT KUMAR PATHAK
(SECRETARY OF THE STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS ASSOCIATION)
S/O- LATE GAJENDRA NATH PATHAK
R/O- BAKRAPARA
PILLINGKATA
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI- 781029
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PHONE NO. 96787-8478
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT
DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/55
4:THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR H
AGARWAL,MS P GUPTA,MR J SINGH,MS V V THANYU
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A S T C, SC, TRANSPORT
Linked Case : WP(C)/4069/2023
RUPJYOTI BORA AND ANR
S/O LATE NABIN CH. BORA
R/O VILL-CHARIGAON
P.O.-BAHONA
DIST-JORHAT-785101
2: SIMANTA BORA
S/O MINA BORA
R/O VILL- HATTICHUNGI GAON
P.O.-CHENIJAN
DIST- JORHAT
PIN-785010
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
Page No.# 3/55
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
5:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC JORHAT DIVISION
JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785101
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/4074/2023
BHASKAR BORAH AND 10 ORS
S/O LATE JATIN BORAH
R/O VILL- KAKOJAN KOMAR KHETOWAL GAON
P.O.-KOMAR KHETOWAL GAON
DIST-JORHAT-785107
2: ABHINASH SARMAH
R/O NAKUL SARMAH
R/O VILL- CHANGESWAR GAON
P.O.-CHUNGI
JORHAT-785616
3: SIMANTA JYOTI SARMAH
S/O MOHESWAR SARMAH
R/O VILL- TAMULI GAON
P.O.-MORIJHANJI
DIST-JORHAT-785682
4: DEEP CH BORAH
S/O LATE DAMBARUDHAR BORAH
R/O VILL- HOOKIMORA
P.O.-BAHONA
DIST-JORHAT-785101
5: ANKUR BORDOLOI
S/O ASHIM BORDOLOI
R/O VILL- NA-ALI DHEKIAJULI SONARY GAON
P.O.-NA-ALI
DHEKIAJULI
Page No.# 4/55
DIST-JORHAT-785009
6: PRANJAL JYOTI PARASAR
S/O BASANTA TAMULY
R/O VILL-PULIBOR BRAHMIN GAON
P.O.-RRL
P.S.-PULIBOR
DIST-JORHAT-785006
7: PALLAB SAIKIA
D/O BASANTA SAIKIA
R/O VILL-SEUJPAR GAON
P.O.-KALAKSWOA
DIST-JORHAT-785010
8: RANJIT HAZARIKA
S/O BOPRAM HAZARIKA
R/O VILL-THENGAL GAON
P.O.-JALUKONIBARI
TITABOR
DIST- JORHAT
PIN-785012
9: AMIT KUMAR TAMULI
S/O PROMOD TAMULI
R/O ASTC COLONY
GOLAGHAT
P.O. AND DIST- GOLAGHAT
PIN-78562
10: PULOK JYOTI BORDOLOI
S/O SRI HARI BORDOLOI
R/O ASTC COLONY
GOLAGHAT
P.O. AND DIST-GOLAGHAT
PIN-78562
11: ADITYA MOHAN SARMAH
S/O LATE BHABEN SARMAH
R/O NAMTI DHEPOR GAON
P.O.-HALUATING
DIST-SIBSAGAR-785684
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Page No.# 5/55
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/4072/2023
AJMIN SULTANA HAQUE AND 6 ORS.
W/O TOFOJUL AHMED
R/O LALUKA GAON
DIST-DIBRUGARH
PIN-786008
2: REBIKA CHANGMAI
W/O DIPEN LAHON
R/O KHANIA GAON
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING
DIST-DIBRUGARH
PIN-786003
3: PRATEEK CHANGKAKOTY
S/O LT HARESH CHANGKAKOTY
R/O NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA
JYOTI NAGAR
NA-PUKHURI
P.O. AND P.S.-TINSUKIA
DIST-TINSUKIA- 786125
Page No.# 6/55
4: SHARAT JYOTI DUTTA
S/O MOHAN DUTTA
R/O 7 NOS. SHANTIPUR
DIST-TINSUKAI-786157
5: ABDUL SAZID
S/O ABDUL HUNAI
R/O LOHARI KACHARI
MAKUM ROAD
DIST-TINSUKIA-786125
6: MANOJ PRASAD SHAH
S/O KRISHNA PRASAD SHAH
R/O PEOLINAGAR
MORAN
DIST-DIBRUAGRH-785670
7: AFTAR ALI
S/O BILAT ALI
PROGOTI NAGAR
NATH BOMA
P.O.-HATIGAON
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
PIN-781038
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC PALTANBAZAR DIVISION
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781005
Page No.# 7/55
5:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4068/2023
PROTIMA DUTTA AND 21 ORS
WIFE OF RAM CH HAZARIKA
RESIDENT OF CHABUA
A WARD
DIST-DIBRUGARH
PIN-786184
2: JUGAL CH SHARMA BORDOLOI
SON OF PANCHANON SHARMA BORDOLOI
RESIDENT OF KUNTI PUKHURI ROAD BORDOLOI NAGAR
TINSUKIA-786125
3: RAJU SAIKIA
SON OF SARAT SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF PULUNGA GAON
CHABUA
DIBRUGARH-786184
4: TOYANATH DHUNGANA
SON OF KRISHNA PD DHUNGANA
RESIDENT OF SUNPURA GAON
SADIYA
TINSUKIA
5: BISWAJIT KONWAR
SON OF BHADRESWAR KONWAR
RESIDENT OF MARGHERITA
ASSAM
PIN-786183
6: BABUL KALITA
SON OF PRABHAT KALITA
RESIDENT OF GELPUKHURI ROAD
Page No.# 8/55
TINSUKIA-786125
7: ANGKAN SAIKIA
SON OF RAJEN SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF NATUN GAON
NEAR SHIVDHAM
TINSUKIA-786125
8: RITURAJ SHARMA
SON OF BHUGESWAR SHARMA
RESIDENT OF NAMRUP
PARBATPUR
DIBRUGARH
PIN-786623
9: BALIN BEZBARUAH
SON OF INDESWAR BEZBORUAH
RESIDENT OF 49
SARU DIRAK ROAD
DIRAK GAON
PIN-786152
10: PUSPENDRA GOGOI
SON OF HARESWAR GOGOI
RESIDENT OF VILL-NOVAJYOTI
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN-786152
11: UTTAM KR GOGOI
SON OF RAMA GOGOI
RESIDENT OF VILL-GOHAIN BARI
P.O. AND P.S.-DHAKUAKHANA
LAKHIMPUR-787055
12: JADAV DOWRAH
SON OF BUDHINDOWARAH
RESIDENT OF NALIAPOOL
SHANKARDEV NAMGHAR
DIBRUGARH-786001
13: ABHIJIT DAS
SON OF SUNIL DAS
RESIDENT OF CHOWKIDINGHEE
DIBRUGARH
786003
14: BHARAT NEWAR
SON OF DAMBORU NEWAR
Page No.# 9/55
RESIDENT OF LAKHI NAGAR
DIBRUGARH-786003
15: BHASKAR GOGOI
SON OF KANAK GOGOI
RESIDENT OF NABAJYOTI
TINSUKIA-786152
16: ANUP JYOTI BORAH
SON OF RAJU BORAH
RESIDENT OF PLAYGROUND
MURAKATA BAMUN MORAN
SIVSAGAR
JHANJI-785683
17: RAJIB DUTTA
SON OF INDRESWAR DUTTA
RESIDENT OF TEPON GAON
P.O.- MANKATTA-786003
18: PRASANTA KACHARI
SON OF BAPDHAN KACHARI
RESIDENT OF BORDIRAK GAON
P.O.- BORDIRAK
KAKOPATHAR-786152
19: JWALANTA KONCH
SON OF DHARMESWAR KONCH
RESIDENT OF KAKOPATHAR
SIBSAGAR-785663
20: INDRA BAHADUR LIMBU
SON OF KUL BAHADUR LIMBU
RESIDENT OF SUNPURA GAON
TINSUKIA-786158
21: KRISHNA CHATRADHAR
SON OF MOHENDRA CHATRADHAR
KANAI GAON
DIBRUGARH-786012
22: SONJAY GOGOI
SON OF MULAN GOGOI
RESIDENT OF LAPHANGKULA GAON
TINSUKIA- 786154
VERSUS
Page No.# 10/55
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/4343/2023
RITESH KUMAR SARKAR
S/O- LATE NARAYAN SARKAR
NIZARA PATH
P.O. ODAL BAKRA
KAHILIPARA
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI-19
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Page No.# 11/55
DISPUR
GUWAHATI.
2:THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
A.S.T. CORPORATION
GUWAHATI
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-08
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A.S.T. CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-08.
4:THE WORKS MANAGER A.S.T. CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-08.
------------
Advocate for : MRS A BUJARBARUAH
Advocate for : SC
A S T C appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/5379/2023
JABED ALI AKHTAR
S/O- LATE HUSSAIN ALI
R/O- H.NO- 15
SANKAR AZAN PATH
BYE LANE NO-1 (DILMIL NAGAR)
P.O AND P.S- HATIGAON
PIN-781038
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
Page No.# 12/55
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSAM
3:THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSAM
4:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER CUM DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CITY SERVICE DIVISION
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI- 781032
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. M RAHMAN
Advocate for : SC
A S T C appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4259/2023
RUPJYOTI RAJBONGSHI AND 49 ORS.
SON OF HARENDRA RAJBONGSHI
RESIDENT OF KRISHNA NAGAR
JAPORIGOG
P.O - JAPORIGOG
DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781005
2: BHASKAR JYOTI SARMA
SON OF SRI JAYANTA SARMA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - GAON BURHA PATH
PATHAR QUWARY
P.O.-UDYAN BIHAR
DISTRICT -KAMRUP(M)
Page No.# 13/55
ASSAM
PIN-781171
3: BHASKAR SARMAH
SON OF SRI BIREN SARMAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KOTALKUCHI
P.O.-ATHGHARIA
DISTRICT - NALBARI
PIN- 781347
ASSAM
4: DHANJIT DEKA
SON OF SRI NAGEN CHANDRA DEKA
RESIDENT OF BIRUBARI
NIZARAPAR
P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR
DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M)
PIN- 781016
5: PRANJIT DAS
SON OF BHABESH CHANDRA DAS
RESIDENT OF GARIGAON
P.O- PANDU
DISTRICT - KAMRU (M) ASSAM
PIN - 781012
6: KHANINDRA MEDHI
SON OF SRI BALORAM MEDHI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGES - KAYANTOL
P. O. -HALOGAON
DISTRICT - KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN - 781103
7: BHASKAR JYOTI TALUKDAR
SON OF SRI NAGEN TALUKDAR
RESIDENT VILLAGE- BOGURIHATI
P.O- BOGURIHATI
DIST- NALBARI
PIN- 781310
ASSAM
8: AKBOR CHETIA
SON OF LATE TANKESWAR CHETIA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHORIABHETA
Page No.# 14/55
P.O- BARUANAGAR
DISTRICT -CHARAIDEO
PIN-785692
ASSAM
9: GAGAN TALUKDAR
SON OF SRI PRAFULLA HALOI
RESIDENT VILLAGE- BAGURIHATI
P.O.- BOGURIHATI
DISTRICT- NALBARI
PIN-781310
ASSAM
10: UTPAL BAISHYA
SON OF LATE NAREN BAISHYA
RESIDENT OF NIZ GONDHMOW
P.O- ROWMARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781104
11: NABA JYOTI BAISHYA
SON OF CHANDRA DHAR BAISHYA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DALIBARI
P.O.- DADARA
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
PIN- 781104
ASSAM
12: RANJAN DAS
SON OF LATE LAKSHMAN DAS
RESIDENT VILLAGE- BARKHALA
P.O.- K P BORKHALA
DISTRICT - NALBARI
PIN -781350
ASSAM
13: MD. FARUQUE AHMED
SON OF MD. HAREZ ALI
RESIDEN OF VILLAGE- GARH
P.O.-BAGHMARA BAZAR
DISTICT - BARPETA
PIN-781328
ASSAM
14: TAFIQUE ALI
SON OF LATE SIDDIQUE ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MUSLIMPATTY
Page No.# 15/55
P.O.-HAJO
DIST- KAMRUP(R)
PIN -781102
ASSAM
15: NAVAJIT PATHAK
SON OF LATE HANGSHA RAM PATHAK
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SINGIMARI
P. O. - CHANDRAPUR
DIST - KAMRUP(M) ASSAM
PIN - 781150
ASSAM
16: HIREN DEKA
SON OF SRI PRATAP CH DEKA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORKA
P.O.-PUB BORKA
DISTRICT-KAMRUP
PIN -781101
ASSAM
17: JITU MANI MEDHI
SON OF SRI NARAYAN MEDHI
RESIDENT OF SOBANCHAH
P.O - KHETRIHARDIA
DIST. - KAMRUP (ASSAM)
PIN - 781102
18: SIMANTA DAS
SON OF SRI JATINDRA NATH DAS
RESIDENT VILLAGE- BHOTEPOWA BORI
P.O.- BHAGMARA BAZAR
DISTRICT -BERPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781328
19: HEEROCKJYOTI DAS
SON OF AJIT DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - GANKPARA
P.O. -LOHARGHAT
Page No.# 16/55
DISTRICT - KAMRUP
PIN - 781125
20: MANAB JYOTI NATH
SON OF SRI MAHESWAR NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOLPAM
P. O. - DHEKIPARA
DISTRICT - DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN -784145.
21: MRINAL MEDHI
SON OF LATE NANDA RAM MEDHI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SAHPUR
P.O. - NANKAR BHAIRA
DISTRICT - NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN - 781369
22: JINTU BORGOHAIN
SON OF SRI GUNA BORGOHAIN
RESIDEN OF SAPATIA GOHAIN GAON
P.O.- SAPATIA
DISTICT-LAKHIMPUR
PIN-787058
ASSAM
23: BIJIT KUMAR SARMAH
SON OF SRI KARUNA SARMA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -BOINAOJA
P. O. - AULACHOWKA
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN -784125.
24: PURNAJIT DEKA
SON OF LATE MANIRAM DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLEGE - JHAKUAPARA
P.O. -HAZARIKAPARA
Page No.# 17/55
DISTRICT - DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN - 784145.
25: PRANAB JYOTI BARUAH
SON OF LT BIDYA DHAR BARUAH
RESIDENT OF KAMALA PATHAR
P. O - ELLENGI SATTA
DISTRICT - SONITPUR (ASSAM)
PIN-784168.
26: ANUPAM SARKAR
SON OF SRI KAMAKHYA SARKAR
RESIDENT OF R.K. MISSION ROAD
P.O.-BIDYAPARA
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
PIN - 783324
ASSAM
27: SAURAV JYOTI BARUAH
SON OF SRI BIMAN BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAMUNPUKHURI DIHINGIA GAON
P. O. - BAMUNPUKHURI
DISTRICT- JORHAT
PIN - 785683
28: PRANJAAL BORAH
SON OF SRI HAREN BORAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -AKHOIPHUTIA GAON
P.O -KHOIPHUTIA
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
PIN -785697.
29: JINTU DOIMARI
SON OF SRI BHABANANDA DOIMARI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -NABIL GAON
P. O. -TOWBHANGA
DISTRICT - SONITPUR
PIN -784182.
30: RAJU DARABDHARA
SON OF SRIKASHIRAM DARABDHARA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - POKAMURA SONARI GAON
P.O - POKAMURA
DISTRICT- JORHAT
Page No.# 18/55
PIN -875004
31: DHURBA JYOTI CHARINGIA
SON OF LATE JITEN CHARINGIA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -TAMULICHIGA DULIYA GAON
P.O. -TAMULICHIGA
DISTRICT- JORHAT
PIN -785682.
32: LAKHYAJIT PHUKAN
SON OF SRI KHUDESWAR PHUKAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -TILOI NAGAR
P.O -TILOI NAGAR
DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH
PIN -785675.
33: DIPANKAR HANDIQUE
SON OF SRISARAT HANDIQUE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -MOTHIA CHIGA ACHALA PATHAR
P.O. - RAJMOW
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
PIN - 785685.
34: SUJJOL BARUAH
SON OF SRI NONI MADHAB BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -RAJA HAWLI SONARI GAON
P.O. - KOROKATALI
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN -785015
35: BIKRAM JYOTI GOSWAMI
SON OF SRI RAMNATH GOSWAMI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -MORANGAON GAON
P.O. - PREMHORA
DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT
PIN -785602
36: ANKUR JYOTI CHANGKAKOTI
SON OF SRIAJIT CHANGKAKOTI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -TAMULICHIGA DULIYA GAON
P.O. -TAMULICHIGA
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN - 785682
37: AMAR JYOTI BORA
SON OF SRI DILIP KUMAR BORA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KALIAPANI CHAPORI BORA CHUK
Page No.# 19/55
P.O. - KALIYAPANI
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN -785112
38: HIMANTA BIJOY KALITA
SON OF LATE JADAV KALITA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DULIAJAN INDRAPURI
P.O. - ANANDAPARA
DISTRICT- DULIAJAN
PIN -786692.
39: BHASKAR JYOTI SAIKIA
SON OF SRI LATE PROMUD SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARANGA GOZPURIA GAON
P.O. - GOZPURIA
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN -785008.
40: BIRAJ DAS
SON OF SRI BENUDHAR DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JANKHONA GAON
P.O. - KOLIANI
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN - 785108.
41: BIKASH DAS
SON OF SRI THANESWAR DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -TEOK UTTAR DULIA GAON
P.O. - UTTAR DULIA
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN -785112.
42: ROMANANDA DAS
SON OF SRI DHONESH DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -NAZIRA TOWN WARD NO 1
P.O. - NAZIRA
DISTRICT-SIVASAGAR
PIN - 785685.
43: DIGANTA DAS
SON OF SRI PULIN DAS
RESIDENT FF VILLAGE - NAZIRA
P.O. -NAZIRA
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
PIN -785685
Page No.# 20/55
44: DIBAKAR SAIKIA
SON OF SRI MOHENDRA SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - LOONPURIA GAON
P.O. - KALOOGAON
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
PIN - 785666
45: DIPJYOTI GOGOI
SON OF SRI LUKESWAR GOGOI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DANDARCHUK GAON
P.O. -BISHMILE
DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH
PIN -786184
46: DEBAJIT BORPATRA GOHAIN
SON OF SRI KHUDRADHAR BORPATRA GOHAIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - HOLONGAPAR GOHAIN GAON
P.O.- KAPARADHARA
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN -785700
47: PARESH GOWALA
SON OF SRI UDESWAR GOWALA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHARIMUTHIA KURMI GAON
P.O. - SILAKUTI
DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO
PIN - 785698
48: BIJIT BHARALI
SON OF SRI BONSHI BHARALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARANGA GOZPURIA GAON
P.O. - GOZPURIA
DISTRICT - JORHAT
PIN - 785008
49: PANKAJ PROTIM BORAH
SON OF SRI LAKHESWAR BORAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BETBARI JULA GAON
P.O. - MITHAPUKHURI
DISTRICT - SIVASAGAR
PIN - 785697
50: SANKAR HAZARIKA
SON OF SRI GIRIN HAZARIKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JOKAI HANCHARA
P.O. - JOKAI
Page No.# 21/55
DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH
PIN -786003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8.
4:CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8.
5:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8.
6:THE WORK MANAGER
CENTRAL WORKSHOP
ASTC
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI-32.
7:THE REGIONAL MANAGER
UPPER ASSAM REGION
ASTC
JORHAT.
------------
Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR
Page No.# 22/55
Advocate for : SC
A S T C appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/5149/2023
DEBOJIT DAS AND 3 ORS
S/O SHRI AJOY KUMAR DAS
R/O ZOO NARENGI ROAD
P.O.-AIDC
GUWAHATI
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781024
2: SANJAY DAS @ SANJOY DAS
S/O SRI SANJIB DAS
MILAN NAGAR PATH
LALGANESH
P.O.-ODALBAKRA
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781034
3: BONJIT BORA
S/O SRI NITUL KUMAR BORA
SHANKAR MADHAB PATH
LOKABANDHU NAGR
KAHILIPARA
P.O.-KAHILIPARA
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781019
4: SAMRAT BARUAH
S/O SRI KESHAB BARUAH
R/O VILL- BEZERA
BAIHATA CHARIALI
P.O.-BEZERA
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781121
VERSUS
Page No.# 23/55
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
2:ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATON
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8
4:CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8
5:CHIEF ENGINEER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-8
------------
Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4070/2023
RUPAM BORUAH AND 2 ORS.
S/O PROBIN BORUAH
R/O VILL- AMGURI
DEODHAI GAON BORUAH CHUK
DIST-SIVSAGAR-785680
2: MANASH JYOTI CHETIA
S/O LATE LUHIT CHETIA
VILL- MORANJAN
DIST- DIBRUGARH
PIN-785673
3: HASIM BORAH
Page No.# 24/55
S/O APEL BORAH
R/O VILL-KATONIPAR DESAN GHAT
P.O.-SUKANPUKHURI
DIST-SIBASAGAR-785640
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/4073/2023
MOMI BORUAH AND 9 ORS.
W/O AJIT SAIKIA
P.O.-BAHONA
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
2: DRUNAJIT MORAN
S/O LOMBHE MORAN
DIST- TINSUKIA
Page No.# 25/55
PIN-786125
3: INDUMONI PHUKAN
W/O JINTUMONI GOGOI
R/O BORGURI COURT TINIALI
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
4: MONALISA MORAN
W/O RITUPARNA DAS
R/O SHANTIPUR BORHAPJAN
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
5: DIPANJALI DEVI
W/O LATE SUNIL KR SHARMA
R/O GELLAPUKHURI ROAD
KOKORATOLI
DIST-TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
6: BISWAJIT SAIKIA
S/O BOLIN SAIKIA
R/O VILL- PULUNGA GAON
P.O.-CHABUA
DIST- DIBRUGARH
PIN-786184
7: PRAKASH SAIKIA
S/O BHABA SAIKIA
R/O VILL- PULUNGA GAON
P.O.-CHABUA
DIST- DIBRUGARH
PIN-786184
8: JASMINARA AHMED
W/O JAKIR ALI
R/O ISLAMNAGAR
DERGAON
DIST- GOLAGHAT
PIN-785614
9: HANIF ALI
S/O PAHAR ALI
R/O KATAHBARI
GORCHUK
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-781035
Page No.# 26/55
10: SUSMITA DOIMARI
D/O HARA KANTA DOIMARI
R/O VILL- NA-BIL
P.O.-NAHARBARI
DIST- SONITPUR
TEZPUR
PIN-784182
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
4:DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
5:DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781005
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/3790/2023
BIJOY KUMAR SINGHA AND 10 ORS.
S/O- BANGSHI DHARI SINGHA
Page No.# 27/55
R/O- GOSSAIPUR PART-I
P.O.- GOSSAIPUR PART-I
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788030.
2: RISHU SINHA
S/O- SRI RAM MOHAN SINHA
R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- SINGARI
SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788017.
3: JABIR HUSSAIN
S/O- LATE ABDUL SATTAR
R/O- VILLAGE- SRIKONA PART-I
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788026.
4: MAKSUD AHMED CHOUDHURY
S/O SRI NAZBUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY
R/O- SUTARKANDI PART-II
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788013.
5: KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- MAHMED ALI BARBHUIYA
R/O- DUNGRIPAR PART-I
P.O.- DUNGRIPAR
SONAI
Page No.# 28/55
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788101.
6: SAYED ANOWAR KAZI
S/O- SRI NUR UDDIN KAZI
R/O- SINGERBOND PART-IV
P.O.- SINGERBOND
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788126.
7: RATNAJIT SINHA
S/O- SRI PRANDHAN SINHA
R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- BHAKATPUR
SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788005.
8: HUSSAIN JAHANGIR KHAN
S/O- SRI NUR AHMED KHAN
R/O- DUNGRIPAR
P.O.- DUNGRIPAR
SONAI
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788126.
9: SAHIDUR RAHMAN
S/O- SRI HAFIJUR RAHMAN
R/O- SINGERBOND PART-IV
P.O.- SINGERBOND
DISTRICT- CACHAR
Page No.# 29/55
ASSAM
PIN- 788126.
10: AMLAN DAS
S/O- SRI ATINDRA KUMAR DAS
R/O- GOBINDAPUR PART-III
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788804.
11: FAIZ AHMED BARBHUIYA
S/O- SRI NAZIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
R/O- GANIRGRAM PART-III
P.O.- GANIRGRAM
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
2:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781008.
Page No.# 30/55
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
PIN- 781008.
4:THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781008.
5:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
SILCHAR DIVISION
INTER-STATE BUS TERMINUS
RAMNAGAR
SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788026.
------------
Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/3314/2023
JABED AKTHAR LASKAR AND 2 ORS
S/O TAYABUR RAHMAN LASKAR VILL. BAGPUR PART III P.O. BAGPUR P.S.
SILCHAR SADAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788101
2: SABIR SOHAIL
S/O BASIR AHMED VILL. GOBINDAPUR P.S SILCHAR SADAR DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM PIN 788101
3: SAHIL ALOM BARBHUIYA
S/O TAWHIR ALI BARBHUIYA VILL. BAGPUR PART 1 P.O. BAGPUR P.S.
SILCHAR SADAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788101
VERSUS
Page No.# 31/55
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ASSAM
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATIO PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI
781008 KAMRUP M ASSAM
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI
781008 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (A AND T)
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI
781008 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
5:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION CACHAR SILCHAR DIST.
CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788005
6:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION CACHAR SILCHAR DIST.
CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788005
7:THE PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE SRIKONA
PO. SRIKONA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788026
8:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT
DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE
CACHAR
SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788001
------------
Advocate for : MR H I CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4071/2023
RANA GOGOI AND 5 ORS.
S/O LATE BHADRESWAR GOGOI
R/O DOHOTIA CHUK
R/O DOHOTIA CHUK
DIST-TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
Page No.# 32/55
2: PRONITA GOGOI
S/O LOMBHE MORAN
R/O VILL-KHOOMTAI GAON
MORANHAT
CHORAIDEO
PIN-785670
3: RIMPI DUTTA
W/O RAKTEEM DUTTA
R/O VILL-BANIPUR
DIST-DIBRUGARH-786184
4: LILARAM DAS
S/O THANURAM DAS
R/O SHIVMANDIR ROAD
NOTUNGAON
DIST-DIBRUGARH-786001
5: PARISHMITA BARUAH
W/O ABHIJIT BORAH
R/O JOYSAGAR
JOYANAGAR
DIST-SIVSAGAR-785665
6: BISWAJIT KONWAR
S/O LATE NEOG KONWAR
R/O VILL-TIPMAI
P.O.-RANG CHANGI
DIST-DIBRUGARH
PIN-786184
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -CUM- CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781008
Page No.# 33/55
4:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
ASTC TINSUKIA DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Date of hearing : 03.09.2025
Date of Judgment and Order : 16 .09.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.
Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 4068/2023, WP(C)
4069/2023, WP(C) 4070/2023, WP(C) 4071/2023, WP(C) 4072/2023,
WP(C) 4073/2023, WP(C) 4074/2023; Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WP(C) 3422/2023; G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WP(C) 3314/2023; Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WP(C) 3790/2023, WP(C) 4259/2023 & WP(C) 5149/2023; Mrs. A.
Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 4343/2023 and
Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 5379/2023.
Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General and Standing
Counsel, ASTC and Ms M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport
Department, for respondents.
Page No.# 34/55
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the
orders dated 30.05.2023 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Assam
State Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as ASTC in short),
Guwahati, whereby, the petitioners have been released from their
contractual services w.e.f. 31.05.2023.
3. Keeping in view the common and identical grievance raised in these
writ petitions, same were heard analogously and are disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
4. WP(C) No. 3422 of 2023 is filed by the State Transport Workers
Association represented by its Secretary, an association of the workers of
the Assam State Transport Corporation registered under the Trade Union
Act, 1926. The petition is filed in a representative capacity for redressal
of the grievances of the 771 members of the association. The other writ
petitions are filed in their individual capacities who are also the members
of the petitioner association.
5. Briefly put, the ASTC is a Public Sector undertaking of the
Government of Assam. Since several years the ASTC is stated to have
engaged large number of persons on contractual basis as Mechanics,
Security Assistants, Office Assistants, Computer Assistants, Drivers,
Grade-IV Staff and Supervisors etc. (consist of 21 different posts) on a
fixed monthly remuneration. The appointments made were either
individually or in batches with the approval of the Managing Director and
as per the decision of the Board of Directors of the ASTC from time to
time.
Page No.# 35/55
6. It is the contention of the petitioners that from 2013 till 2020, they
were appointed on contractual basis after following due process of
selection by way of test and interview conducted from time to time to
different posts consisting of 21 (Twenty One) posts. It is contended that
the engagement/appointment of the petitioners are not exhaustive as
during the first several years, large number of persons were engaged
under ASTC as contractual employees in various capacities including the
petitioners.
7. It is contended that while the contractual employees were serving in
various capacities, the respondent authorities took a decision to release
771 contractual employees (petitioners herein) from their services vide
Minutes of the Meeting held on 29.04.2023 chaired by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister. The Minutes discloses that earlier in the Review Meeting of the
Transport Department held on 27.06.2022, it was decided to enquire into
the procedure followed in the recruitment of contractual staffs in the
ASTC and verify whether due procedure was followed in such
recruitments and to retain only the legally appointed staffs. Upon
verification, it was observed that 771 employees were appointed without
following the due procedure such as advertisement etc. The Minutes
further reflects that in the appointment/engagement of the 771
employees, the ASTC has not followed any procedure of selection. The
ASTC is solely dependent on the Government to meet up the salary
requirements of its employees, therefore, any appointment in ASTC
should have prior approval of Government as the same has financial
implication on the Government. Therefore, the contractual appointment
of the 771 employees, which has not been done by following the due
Page No.# 36/55
procedure of recruitment, shall not be renewed and they shall be
released from their services as the appointments are not regular
appointments rather contractual, the term which has already expired. It
also further observed that enquiry should be conducted to fix
responsibility for irregular engagement of contractual employees.
8. It has further observed that once the 771 contractual employees are
released from their services, the ASTC would be faced with acute
shortage of manpower and therefore, it was decided to hire the services
of the casual workers through outsourcing agencies where entire
liabilities including the service benefits of the said workers would be
covered by the manpower agency through whom the same workers
would be hired. Accordingly, minimum requirement was earmarked as the
only responsibility of ASTC would be to pay them their monthly salaries
through the manpower agency.
9. It is contended that from the aforesaid proposal it is clearly evident
that the ASTC was already taking steps for engaging other casual
employees in place of the 771 contractual employees (petitioners herein)
by replacing one set of ad-hoc employees with another set of ad-hoc
employees which is impermissible under the well established principles of
service jurisprudence, which requires that ad-hoc employees can be
replaced only by regular permanent employees and not again by any ad-
hoc employees.
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the respondents, eventually,
the respondent authorities have issued the impugned release orders
dated 30.05.2023, whereby, the 771 contractual employees of ASTC (the
Page No.# 37/55
petitioners herein) (by separate orders) were released from their services
w.e.f. 31.05.2023, on the ground that on verification they were found to
be engaged without following any recruitment procedure as laid down by
the Corporation and the Government. Contending essentially that the
impugned release orders dated 30.05.2023, having been passed in
violation of the fundamental right under Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India as well as in violation of the principle of natural
justice, these writ petitions are filed.
11. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. B. D. Konwar,
learned Senior Counsel have submitted that from the impugned release
orders, it is seen that a verification was carried out as to whether the
appointment of the employees of the ASTC on contractual basis is as per
the procedure or not. However, it is not disclosed as to how the
verification was carried out and by whom and in any case, the affected
employees were not taken into confidence in such a verification exercise.
The action of the respondent authorities is a blatant and glaring violation
of principle of natural justice as no Show-Cause Notices were issued to
the affected employees particularly the petitioners herein and no
opportunity was given to them to defend their case before resorting to
the drastic step of releasing them from their services. Although the
petitioners are contractual employees, nevertheless, before any adverse
steps were taken against them, they were entitled to a minimum of
Show-Cause Notice and hearing. The decision to release the 771
contractual employees from their services was taken behind their backs
in total violation of the principle of natural justice.
Page No.# 38/55
12. It is submitted by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that the
action of the respondent authorities clearly evident that the authorities
are contemplating to engage other causal employees to meet the acute
shortage of manpower that would result in the wake of the release of
771 contractual employees. Therefore, such steps would be in total
violation of the well settled principle of service jurisprudence. It has been
submitted by the learned counsels that the services of the contractual
employees were essential for running the day-to-day affairs of the
Corporation and therefore, the release of the petitioners from the
services of the Corporation is an arbitrary and whimsical step, which is
not at all in the public interest and the interest of the Corporation.
13. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the
petitioners ought not to have been released but ought to have been
continued in their services until such time regular appointments are
made by giving them also an opportunity to participate in the selection
process by condoning their age if so required and also by giving a
preferential treatment due to their in-service experience in the ASTC.
Therefore, the learned counsels have submitted that the action of the
respondents in releasing the petitioners from their services is wholly
arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice
and as such, the impugned orders of release dated 30.05.2023 may be
set aside and quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to
reinstate the petitioners in services and to pay their salaries regularly.
14. Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel, while referring to the
order dated 01.01.2021, submits that as many as 29 (Twenty Nine)
Page No.# 39/55
Grade IV workers have been allowed to continue to officiate by providing
the condition of service, pursuant to the meeting of the Board of
Directors held on 22.12.2020, for those who have rendered 10 years or
above of continuous service on contractual basis. Whereas, the case of
the petitioners who is equally circumstanced has not been considered
rather selectively released from their services on flimsy ground of not
having been engaged by following the proper selection process, a
reason/ground contrary to record as the petitioners were appointed after
conducting interview, which is an act of discrimination by the respondent
authorities. Learned counsels have submitted that the petitioners may be
afforded an opportunity to participate in the selection process for regular
appointment as and when such an exercise is undertaken by the
respondent authorities by giving weightage to their experience and also
by condoning the age as may be required and allow the petitioners to
continue till the regular appointment is made.
15. Learned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels for the
petitioners have placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i).Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 3826.
(ii).Manish Gupta & Anr. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti &
Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 485,
(iii).Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007)
13 SCC 292.
(iv).Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand &
Page No.# 40/55
Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238,
(v).Nihal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. , reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 65,
(vi).Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC
327.
16. On the other hand Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General
for the State respondents, while raising the maintainability of the writ
petition filed by the Association, submits that the writ petitioner State
Transport Workers' Association is not a registered association under the
Trade Union Act, 1926 and all the 771 numbers of contractual employees
who have been released from their contractual services are not the
members of the association as no authorization is shown. Therefore, the
writ petition filed by an unregistered association is not maintainable.
17. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General submits that none
of the petitioners engaged on contractual basis were appointed by
following the due selection process as no advertisement was issued
giving wide publicity to inform the eligible candidates about the
engagement to be made in the ASTC, enabling to participate in the
recruitment process. Mere approval of the Managing Director would not
make any recruitment legally sustainable unless such recruitment have
been made by following the selection process with the approval of the
competent authority, the Board of Directors of ASTC in the present case.
He submits that it is a settled proposition of law that no person can be
appointed even on a temporary or ad-hoc basis without issuing
Page No.# 41/55
advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates. Any
appointment made by merely inviting names from the employment
exchange or putting a note on the notice board will not meet the
requirement of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits
that the writ petitioners have failed to produce/show any advertisement
pursuant to which engagement has been made or any approval of the
Board of Directors, ASTC. He submits that no decision has been taken by
the Board of Directors, ASTC to engage another set of ad-hoc employees
in place of 771 contractual employees already released. As and when the
requirement arises, proper selection process will be followed in
accordance with the Rules, wherein, the petitioners shall also be eligible
to participate subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
18. He submits that a person employed in violation of Article 14 & 16 is
not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal
appointment, mandatory compliance with the said constitutional
requirement is to be fulfilled. In the instant case, the petitioners were
engaged without issuing any advertisement and without following any
procedure of law. Accordingly, their engagements itself were in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
19. He submits that pursuant to the decision taken in the Review
Meeting dated 27.06.2022, a report was submitted by the Managing
Director, ASTC, vide his letter No.ASTC/HO/Review Meeting/2053/2021,
dated 16.08.2022 and on verification, findings have been as endorsed on
05.09.2022 in the Note sheet of the departmental file No. TMV-104,
stating that there are 2168 numbers of contractual employees under
Page No.# 42/55
ASTC working in various categories and over a period of time, during the
tenure of Managing Director, ASTC, Shri K. N. Chetia (235 numbers) and
Managing Director, ASTC, Shri A. P. Tiwari (536 numbers), a total of 771
numbers of contractual staffs were engaged without following the
procedure of advertisement and written test or interview. Moreover, a
large numbers of contractual employees had not signed any agreement
and agreements which had been signed were valid till 31.01.2022 and as
on 05.09.2022 no contractual employee of ASTC had valid agreement.
Thus, out of 2168 numbers of employees 771 were discontinued and the
remaining 1397 employees are retained.
20. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General submits that a
conscious decision was taken not to renew the contractual services of the
771 numbers of employees, beyond 31.03.2023, on which date the
contract period of these employees expired. Further, in view of the well
settled principle of law that the appointments made on contractual basis
for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the
person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post, even
if a notice would have been served upon these employees, same would
not have made any difference for the fact that the period of their
contractual services has expired.
21. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance
upon the following judgments:
(i). State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011)
3 SCC 436.
(ii). Sonalika Bhargava vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., reported in
Page No.# 43/55
2020 SCC OnLine Del 3471.
(iii).Yogesh Mahajan vs. Professor R. C. Deka, Director, All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218.
(iv). K. Anbazhagan & Anr. Vs. Registrar General, High Court of
Madras and Anr., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 293.
22. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on
record.
23. The petitioners were appointed in different posts on contractual basis
in the ASTC. The total appointment appears to be around 2168 in
numbers including the petitioners. The issue of engagement of large
number of contractual employees and the allegation that entire 2168
numbers of persons were recruited without following the due procedure
nor any interviews were held, was considered in the Review Meeting of
the Transport Department, Govt. of Assam held on 27.06.2022, chaired
by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Assam. Accordingly, a decision was taken to
conduct an enquiry/verification process into the matter and that if the
allegations are found to be true, to issue show cause notice to the then
Managing Directors, ASTC, for flouting the Government norms and also,
to initiate Departmental proceedings against such Government officers. It
was also decided that after enquiry and on assessment, the Transport
Department would go through the then existing contractual staffs of
ASTC and appropriate direction would be issued to keep only the
essential and legally appointed staffs, and other staffs to be released
Page No.# 44/55
immediately thereafter.
24. Pursuant to above decision taken in the Review Meeting dated
27.06.2022, a report was prepared in respect of 2168 numbers of
contractual employees and placed before the Secretary, Transport
Department on 05.08.2022. On the basis of the report dated 05.08.2022,
the Transport Department, Government of Assam, vide letter dated
11.08.2022, directed the Managing Director, ASTC, to submit full details,
including the copies of appointment letter (if any), dates of contract
extension, along with copies of contract agreements.
25. A report was submitted by the Managing Director, ASTC, dated
16.08.2022 and on verification, findings have been as endorsed on
05.09.2022 stating that there are 2168 numbers of contractual
employees under ASTC working in various categories and over a period
of time, a total of 771 numbers of contractual staffs were engaged
without following the procedure of selection process. Moreover, a large
numbers of contractual employees had not signed any agreement and
agreements which had been signed were valid till 31.01.2022 and as on
05.09.2022 no contractual employee of ASTC had valid agreement.
26. On the basis of such exercise, the review meeting of the Transport
Department held on 29.04.2023, Chaired by the Hon'ble Chief Minister,
Assam, took the decision, inter-alia, not to renew the contract of 771
numbers of contractual employees who were recruited by not following
due procedure of advertisement and other requirement of public
employment and to release them. Thereafter, the Board of Directors,
ASTC, in its meeting dated 24.05.2023, gave its approval to the decision
Page No.# 45/55
not to renew the contract of these 771 numbers of employees after its
expiry on 31.03.2023 and to release them. As a consequence, vide
impugned orders dated 30.05.2023, 771 numbers of contractual
employees of ASTC, petitioners herein, have been released from their
contractual services.
27. It is true and a settled position of law that no person can be
appointed even on a temporary or ad-hoc basis without inviting
application from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by
merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note
on the Notice Board, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such a course violates the
mandates of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives
the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A
person employed in violation of these principles is not entitled to any
relief. For a valid and legal appointment, mandatory compliance with the
constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. In the present case the
petitioners were appointed on contractual basis without issuing any
advertisement, however, the appointment orders reflect that they were
appointed after having been qualified in the test and interview.
Therefore, their appointments appear to be after test and interview
although no advertisement was issued.
28. It is also a settled principle of law that no contractual employee has
a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being
so, normally, no right is accrued to the petitioners to continue in their
services. At best, the petitioners could claim that the concerned
Page No.# 46/55
authorities should consider extending their contractual services if their
services are required in the service of public till regular appointment is
made. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the
petitioners on a contractual basis were made after issuance of
advertisement, although the tests and interviews appear to have been
conducted which is reflected in their appointment orders. Therefore, their
appointments appear to be strictly not in accordance with the
constitutional scheme of public employment. That being so, in my view,
no indefeasible right may accrue in favour of the petitioners. However, if
the appointments/engagements were preceded by test and interview as
reflected in their appointment orders, same may be term as irregular and
not illegal.
29. Regard being had to the non issuance of notice and violation of
principle of natural justice, it is a settled principle that elementary rule of
natural justice cannot be a capsule formula of universal application to all the
situations and cases. No inflexible rule of hearing and due application of
mind can be insisted upon in every and all cases as each case depends
upon its own backdrop. Mere infraction of principle of natural justice may
not be a sufficient ground for holding the orders illegal. As noted above,
admittedly, no advertisement is shown to have been issued except
mentioned of test and interview in the appointment orders and the
petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis for a period of one
year only, though they have been allowed to continue till they are released.
Thus, no principle of natural justice or an opportunity of being heard can be
insisted upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. That
apart, Hon'ble Supreme Court has curved out an exception to rule of natural
justice namely- Useless Formality Theory or Doctrine of Futile Exercise. This
Page No.# 47/55
theory applies in exceptional cases where facts are admitted or undisputed
and only possible conclusion leads to same result even if violation of natural
justice is occurred. The focus is only on substantial justice rather than
merely completing a mere ritual of hearing. A profitable reference may be
made to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of M.C. Mehta
vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1999) 6 SCC 237; S.L. Kapoor
vs. Jagmohan, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379; Aligarh Muslim
University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, reported in (2000) 7 SCC
529 and Chairman State Bank of India & Anr. vs M. J. James,
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301.
30. Insofar as the maintainability of writ petitions are concerned, I find
that the petitioner in WP(C) 3422/2023 is a registered society and other
writ petitions are filed in their individual capacities. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot be told to stop at the gate and non-suited and as
such, writ petitions cannot be said to be not maintainable.
31. Now this Court would refer and consider the relevant case laws relied
on by the learned counsels for the parties.
32. In the case of Jaggo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held,
which is reproduced as hereunder:
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of
backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts
and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment
is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the
claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite
Page No.# 48/55
the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization
exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who
have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging
workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach
aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in
the country."
33. In Manish Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
it is a settled principle of law that an ad-hoc employee cannot be
replaced by another ad-hoc employee and he can be replaced only by
another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular
procedure prescribed. The case of Hargurpratap Singh (supra), is
relied on to show that even though the petitioners may not be entitled to
regular appointment but they will be entitled to continue till regular
incumbents are appointed.
34. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the fact that the State continued with the
irregular appointments for almost a decade is a clear indication that it
believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and
whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed
employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is
nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them
Page No.# 49/55
the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over
their head. Cases have to be considered in its contextual perspective and
not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or
otherwise, and the interest of the employees is also required to be kept
in mind.
35. In the case of Nihal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
with regard to the aspect that in the absence of sanctioned posts the
State cannot be compelled to absorb the persons like the appellants into
the services of the State, held that we can only say that posts are to be
created by the State depending upon the need to employ people having
regard to various functions the State undertakes to discharge.
"Every sovereign Government has within its own jurisdiction right and power to
create whatever public offices it may regard as necessary to its proper functioning
and its own internal administration."
It has been held which is reproduced hereinunder:
"33. It is no doubt that the assessment of the need to employ a certain number of
people for discharging a particular responsibility of the State under the Constitution
is always with the executive Government of the day subject to the overall control of
the Legislature. That does not mean that an examination by a Constitutional Court
regarding the accuracy of the assessment of the need is barred.
35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a
relevant factor reference to which the executive government is required to take
rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts
such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the
creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take
a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the
appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on
the part of the State".
36. In the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that this Court believes that the essence of employment and the
Page No.# 50/55
rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of
appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved
significantly over time. The continuous service in the capacities of regular
employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent
posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and
scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. The judgment in Uma
Devi also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments
underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if
were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and
Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of
written examinations or interviews.
37. In the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that at one time this Court had been of the view that
calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain
extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment.
But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method
consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In
other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner
calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto
should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are
requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is
mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all
eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in
Page No.# 51/55
newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and
Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange
does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. It
has been held which is reproduced here in under:
"36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even
on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible
candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the
Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet
the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the
mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the
candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed
in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a
valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional
requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires
that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all
eligible persons to compete on merit.
37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not
get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an
action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes
at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to
validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in
violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad
in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be
necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin."
38. In Sonalika Bhargava (supra), the court has held, which is
reproduced as hereunder:
"... 44. It is true that an Authority / State cannot be permitted to act whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, but this cannot be applied as a principle in every case, to
hold that in each case the Contract of employment must be extended as a matter of
right. On the expiry of the Contract no obligation can be fastened on the employer to
necessarily extend the said contract. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot impose any such liability on the employer.
39. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held, which is reproduced as hereunder:
Page No.# 52/55
"6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract
renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show
any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010.
At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider
extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and
in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his
services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by
the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner."
40. In the case of K. Anbazhagan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that although temporary, ad-hoc and contractual appointments
are used in contradiction to a regular and permanent appointment but
between ad-hoc appointment and contract appointment, distinction is
there in service jurisprudence and both the expressions cannot be
interchangeably used.
41. Perusal of the above case laws, clearly deduced the principles of law
that ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee. No
contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from
time to time. On the expiry of the contract no obligation can be fastened
on the employer to necessarily extend the said contract. If an order is
bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A
subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not
lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root
of the order. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin. The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be
merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual
course of employment has evolved significantly over time. No person can
be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting
applications from all eligible candidates. The judgments also
Page No.# 53/55
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments
underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if
were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and
Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of
written examinations or interviews. The State continued with the
irregular appointments for almost a decade is a clear indication that it
believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and
whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed
employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed and same
is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them
the benefits of regularisation. Cases have to be considered in its
contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest
of the State, financial or otherwise and the interest of the employees is
also required to be kept in mind.
42. It is also deducible that the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing
fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices,
government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness
that they are meant to embody.
43. Having considered above, in my view the principles can be pressed
Page No.# 54/55
into its contextual facts of each case which are being done by the Courts
and cannot be insisted in each and every case and there would not be
any quarrel to the above principles of law as laid down.
44. Reverting back to the present case, admittedly the petitioners were
appointed on contractual basis in different posts without any
advertisement, but tests and interviews as reflected in their appointment
orders. The authorities having found that the appointments are not made
by following the due process of selection as no advertisement was issued
on inquiry, have taken a decision to release those 771 employee, the
petitioners herein, and accordingly released them by an impugned
orders. However, taking note of the acute shortage of manpower in the
wake of release of petitioners, the authorities have decided to outsource
the service from the private manpower agency. Undisputably, no notices
were issued to the petitioners, of course, may not be required as their
appointments were on contract basis for a period of one year. But, one
cannot brushed aside that they have been allowed to continue initially
from 2013 and till the impugned orders were issued, releasing them from
services.
45. It is true that no contract employee would have right to continue in
his/her service after expiry of the contract period, nevertheless, the
petitioners, in my considered opinion, ought to have been allowed to
continue till the posts are filled up on regular basis by following the
constitutional scheme of public employment as the requirement of their
services in the public interest is clearly discernable from the decision of
the respondent authorities that there would be acute shortage of
manpower in the wake of release of the petitioners. More so, the
Page No.# 55/55
petitioners are essentially seeking continuation in the service till the posts
are filled up on regular basis and allow them to participate in the even
regular selection process is undertaken by condoning their age if require,
which this court finds fair and reasonable grievance by the petitioners.
46. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered
view that the petitioners ought not to have been released as their
appointments appear to be irregular but not illegal and there would be
acute shortage of manpower to the respondent Corporation. Therefore,
the services of the petitioners are required to be allowed to continue till
the posts are filled up on regular basis or abolished. Accordingly, the
petitioners shall be taken back on duty and they shall be allowed to
continue till the regular appointments are made or the posts are
abolished, if the posts are not already filled up or abolished. However,
the petitioners shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages
for the period they have not worked for. It is also provided that the
petitioners be allowed to participate in the regular selection process in
the event the authorities decide to fill up the post by condoning the age
if required, subject to eligibility as per Rules.
47. In the result, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 issued by the
Chief Personnel Officer, Assam State Transport Corporation, Guwahati, are
set aside.
48. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Cost(s) made easy.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
