[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sashi Saikia vs Dr. J. B. Ekka on 7 February, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010093952024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/247/2024
SASHI SAIKIA
S/O LATE JIBAKANTA SAIKIA, R/O BATIGAON, P.O.-LILABARI, ARABASTI,
DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
DR. J. B. EKKA, IAS AND 4 ORS.
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, GHY-06
2:TONMOY PROTIM BORGOHAIN
IAS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONAL (B) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:JITU KUMAR DAS
ACS
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR ZILA PARISHAD
PIN-787001
ASSAM
4:SMT. GAYATRI HYALINGE
IAS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
LAKHIMPUR
PIN NO. 7871001
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
5:TRIPURENDRA PATAR
ACS
CHAIRMAN OF LAKHIMPUR ZILA PARISHAD
LAKHIMPU
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Saikia
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. S Dutta, Standing Counsel, P &RD
Mr. B Gogoi, Addl.AG, Assam
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
07.02.2026
Heard Mr. M Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel who
appears on behalf of the P& RD Department and Mr. B Gogoi, the learned
Addl.AG, Assam who appears on behalf of the Finance Department.
2. The instant application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation
of the order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WP(C)No.3857/2021, wherein the
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to
take appropriate steps in the matter for regularization of the services of the
petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the said order dated 25.01.2024 is
reproduced hereinunder:
"In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India this Court would have a bounden duty to protect
Page No.# 3/5
the right of every citizen from arbitrary and discriminatory treatment at the
hands of the authorities. Since the petitioner was admittedly engaged prior
to 01-04-1993 and since there was a cabinet decision to regularise the
services of all casual employees/ work charge employees/muster roll
employees who were engaged prior to 01-04-1993, the respondents ought
to have regularise the services of the petitioner also. By not doing so, the
petitioner has been arbitrarily and illegally deprived of the benefit of the
cabinet decision for no fault on his part. Therefore, the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be declined by this Court merely on the ground that
presently, there is no vacancy. Since the right of the petitioner is firmly
established and his entitlement is not denied by the department, his
services will have to be regularised, if necessary by creating a
supernumerary post, by giving effect to such regularisation from the date
on which, other similarly situated candidates were regularised in service.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the
respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in the matter for
regularization of services of the petitioner in the light and observations
made hereinabove.
The exercise be carried out and completed as expeditiously as
possible, but not later than 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."
3. As there was no compliance to the order within 8(eight) weeks from the
date of receipt of the certified copy, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present application.
4. Today, Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Page No.# 4/5
respondents submitted that the respondents have all intentions to comply with
the order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WP(C)No.3857/2021, however, the
Finance Department, Govt. of Assam have issued a communication on
11.11.2025 thereby informing that it is not possible at present to regularise the
case of the petitioner in view of the judgment learned Division Bench of this
Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Sri Upen Das and Others passed in
WA No.45/2014 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and other, reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1.
5. It is the opinion of this Court that from a perusal of the materials on record
and more particularly, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dated 25.01.2024 that the respondents were directed to regularize the services
of the petitioner. This was done so as all similarly situated persons like the
petitioner were regularised who were appointed prior to 01.04.1993 as per the
very decision and policy of the State of Assam then. It is also very pertinent to
note that the State of Assam had also regularised various personnel in terms
with the State Policy which was existing then.
6. In that view of the matter what appears is that on account of the objections
raised by the Finance Department of the Govt. of Assam, the respondents in the
P & RD Department are not in a position to regularise the case of the petitioner
and comply with the order dated 25.01.2024.
7. Accordingly, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file an application to
implead the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam Finance
Department as a party to the instant proceedings.
8. Mr. M Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Page No.# 5/5
submits that he would like to file such application within 2(two) weeks.
9. List the matter immediately upon filing of such application.
10. A copy of the communication dated 11.11.2025 which was placed by Mr. S
Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondents is kept on record and marked
with the letter 'X'.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
