Dismissed

Md. Eunush Ali and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2018WP(C)/1070/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by former Irrigation Department employees seeking unpaid arrear salaries and reinstatement. Relying on the principle that laches and unexplained delays exception apply even to similarly situated employees, the court held the claims time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as petitioners are fence-sitters with unexplained laches and delay.

Md. Eunush Ali and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/28

¶2

GAHC010183262012

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5532/2012

¶5

1:RANTU TALUKDAR and 2 ORS

¶6

S/O- SRI TARINI KANTA TALUKDAR, R/O VILL. and P.O.- BORIMAKHA, DIST.- BASKA, ASSAM.

¶7

2: MONESWAR BORO S/O- LT. RABI RAM BORO R/O VILL.- BETNAAUGURI DIST.- BASKA ASSAM.

¶8

3: SIBA RAM KALITA S/O- LT. ADITYA KALITA R/O VILL.- TINGAJHAR DIST.- BASKA ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., CHANDMARI, GHY- 3, KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶12

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY- 3 KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶13

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI

¶14

Page No.# 2/28

¶15

GHY- 3 KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶16

4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. ZONE- II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶17

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SOITPUR ASSAM.

¶18

6:THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R M DAS

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶21

Linked Case : WP(C) 1070/2012 1:MD. EUNUSH ALI and 8 ORS S/O LATE ABIR ALI R/O GOALPARA BELSOR NALBARI ASSAM

¶22

2: MD. INAMUL HAQUE CHOUDHURY

¶23

S/O MD. JABBAR ALI R/O ISLAMPUR PATHSALA BARPETA ASSAM

¶24

Page No.# 3/28

¶25

3: UDAY KUMAR KALITA

¶26

S/O SRI LAKSHEWAR KALITA R/O BAMUNKUCHI PATASARKUCHI BARPETA ASSAM

¶27

4: UTPAL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE JAGAT CHOUDHURY R/O PATHSALA PATARKUCHI BARPETA ASSAM

¶28

5: RAIBUL ISLAM S/O LATE BASIR ALI R/O BHELLA BARPETA ASSAM

¶29

6: MUKHTAR HUSSAIN SAIKIA

¶30

S/O MD. MAJUN ALI R/O LOHARKATHA MUKALMUA NALBARI ASSAM

¶31

7: BHUPEN HAZARIKA

¶32

S/O LATE KRISHNA HAZARIKA R/O NALICHA BELSOR NALBARI ASSAM

¶33

8: MONOJ KR. BARMAN

¶34

S/O LATE GHANA KANTA BARMAN R/O KAKAYA BELSOR NALBARI ASSAM

¶35

9: PULASPYA KASHYAP S/O SRI MUNINDRA KR. DEKA

¶36

Page No.# 4/28

¶37

R/O KHANAPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS

¶38

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶39

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶40

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶41

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶42

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM

¶43

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION

¶44

Page No.# 5/28

¶45

IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R M DAS Advocate for the Respondent :

¶46

Linked Case : WP(C) 150/2013

¶47

1:HAMEN KALITA and ANR. S/O SRI NARAYAN KALITA R/O VILL and P.O. JANIGOG DIST. NALBARI ASSAM 2: MD. CHANU AHMED S/O MD. ANWAR ALI R/O VILL and P.O. JANIGOG DIST. NALBARI ASSAM. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 KAMRUP ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR

¶48

Page No.# 6/28

¶49

ASSAM.

¶50

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATIO TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R M DAS Advocate for the Respondent :

¶51

Linked Case : WP(C) 2939/2013

¶52

1:MD JYONIMAN RAHMAN and 5 ORS S/.O LATE AZIZAR RAHMAN R/O RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 2: AKHTAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE AZIZAR RAHMAN R/O RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 3: JAKIR BORA S/O KAISAR BORA R/O GOG BORPOLAHA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 4: ARUN CH. DEKA S/O SARAT DEKA R/O SUTARKUCHI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶53

5: MAHADEV DEKA

¶54

Page No.# 7/28

¶55

S/O LATE LOKHYADHAR DEKA R/O CHAPARIA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 6: ABUAT HUSSAIN S/O LATE NURUDDIN AHMED R/O GOG P.O. BARPALAHA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION

¶56

Page No.# 8/28

¶57

TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A N CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : WP(C) 577/2012 1:SRI BHUPEN DAS and 5 ORS BHUPEN DAS S/O LATE ROSHIK DAS VILL- JOYMANGALA P.O. BAR-AZARA P.S. and DIST- NALBARI ASSAM 2: HEMEN BAISHYA S/O LATE MANGALA RAM BAISHYA VILL DALIBARI P.O. DADARA P.S. HAJO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 3: MUKUT KALITA S/O UDAY CH. KALITA VILL BONGSHARRATANPUR P.O. BONGSHAR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 4: GOPESH DAS S/O MAHIM CH. DAS VILL RATANPUR P.O. BORBHOG DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5: ABBASH ALI S/O LATE ARAB ALI

¶58

Page No.# 9/28

¶59

VILL OUGURI P.S. GORESWAR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 6: APURBA MALAKAR S/O DHARESWAR MALAKAR VILL KHUDRADADHI P.O. GERUA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE

¶60

Page No.# 10/28

¶61

IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A N CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC IRRIGATION

¶62

Linked Case : WP(C) 6315/2012

¶63

1:SRI KANAK RABHA and 29 ORS S/O- SRI RABI RAM RABHA R/O VILL.- BARIGAON P.O.- CHENIGAON P.S.- GORESWAR DIST.- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶64

2: SRI GOPAL DEKA

¶65

SON OF LATE RANTI RAM DEKA R/O. VILLAGE - BETAGAON P.O. NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶66

3: SRI DHIREN RABHA

¶67

S/O SRI CHANDRA KT. RABHA R/O. VILLAGE - BARIGAON P.O. NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶68

4: SRI GOVINDA RABHA

¶69

SON OF SRI SHIVA RAM RABHA

¶70

Page No.# 11/28

¶71

R/O. VILLAGE - CHENIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶72

5: SRI JAYANTA RABHA

¶73

SON OF SRI BISHNU RABHA R/O. VILLAGE - BARIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST.BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶74

6: SRI DHARMESWAR RABHA

¶75

SON OF LATE KAN RABHA R/O. VILLAGE - BETAGAON P.O. NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶76

7: SRI NAREN RABHA

¶77

SON OF SRI CHANDRA KT. RABHA R/O. VILLAGE - BARIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶78

8: SRI HARENDRA RABHA

¶79

SON OF SRI DINA RAM RABHA R/O. VILLAGE - BARIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶80

9: MD. MOKTAR HUSSAIN

¶81

SON OF MD. JAMSHED ALI R/O. VILLAGE - MUKUNDPUR P.O. BHOGPUR P.S. GORESWAR

¶82

Page No.# 12/28

¶83

DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶84

10: MD DILMAHMUD ALI

¶85

SON OF MD. ASTAB ALI R/O VILLAGE - NO. 5 GORESWAR P.O. GORESWAR P.S GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶86

11: MD. MAHAMMAD ALI

¶87

SON OF LATE MANU ALI R/O. VILLAGE - HATIGAON P.O. HATIGAON P.S HATIGAON GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM.

¶88

12: SRI MEDHI RAM BORO

¶89

SON OF LATE CHANDRADHAR BORO R/O. VILLAGE - OUGURI P.O. BHOGPUR P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶90

13: MD. RAHMAN ALI

¶91

SON OF LATE RAFIT ALI R/O. VILLAGE - OUGURI P.O. BHOGPUR P.S GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶92

14: MD. ARMAN ALI

¶93

SON OF LATE JAMSED ALI R/O. VILLAGE- GANAKJHAR P.O. MAHAJANPARA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶94

Page No.# 13/28

¶95

15: MD. TAFIK ALI

¶96

SON OF LATE NABAT ALI R/O. VILLAGE - PUB-JATIYABHANGARA P.O. SHUTARGAON P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶97

16: MD. MAINUL CHOUDHURY

¶98

SON OF MD. AMZED ALI R/O. VILLAGE - BHOGPUR P.O. - BHOGPUR P.S.- GORESWAR DIST.- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶99

17: SRI NAYAN BAISHYA

¶100

S/O. RAMANI BAISHYA R/O. VILLAGE - CHANDUKUCHI P.O. - GOPAL DHAM DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM.

¶101

18: MD. GULJAR AHMED

¶102

SON OF MD. GIUS UDDIN AHMED R/O. VILL.- CITY POLICE RESERVE P.O.- PANBAZAR P.S.-PANBAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001 DIST.- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM.

¶103

19: MD. ABDUL KAYEM

¶104

SON OF MD. AZNUR HUSSAIN R/O. VILL.- NATBOMA BITUPAN PATH P.O.- HATIGAON P.S- HATIGAON DIST.- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM.

¶105

20: SRI GANESH DAIMARY

¶106

Page No.# 14/28

¶107

SON OF LATE BHABEN DAIMARY R/O. VILLAGE- NATHKUCHI P.O. TENGAJHAR P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶108

21: SYED RACHID ALAM CHOUDHURY

¶109

SON OF LATE AYUB ALI R/O. VILLAGE - KANIHA P.O. KANIHA P.S DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶110

22: SRI DWIPEN BORO

¶111

SON OF LATE MONO RAM BORO R/O. VILLAGE- NIZBARIGOG P.O. GHOGRAPAR P.S. GHOGRAPAR DIST. NALBARI ASSAM.

¶112

23: SRI AJOY RABHA

¶113

SON OF SRI CHANDRA KT. RABHA R/O. VILLAGE- BARIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶114

24: SRI BULA RAM BORO

¶115

SON OF LATE NALIN BORO R/O VILLAGE- RAMCHAJHAR P.O. MAHARIPARA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶116

25: SRI CHAKRADHAR DAS

¶117

SON OF LATE BIPIN DAS R/O. VILLAGE- NIZKACHULA P.O. MAHARIPARA

¶118

Page No.# 15/28

¶119

P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶120

26: SRI BIKRAM PHANGCHU

¶121

SON OF SRI AKAN PHANGCHU R/O. VILLAGE- PATARKUCHI GUWAHATIP.O. and P.S. BASISTHA KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶122

27: SRI ANIL DAS

¶123

SON OF SRI MAHON BASHI DAS R/O. VILLAGE- BARIGAON P.O. CHENIGAON P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶124

28: SRI DILIP RAJBONGSHI

¶125

SON OF LATE SISHU RAM RAJBONGHSHI R/O. VILLAGE- BETAGOAN P.O. NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶126

29: SRI DHARANI BORO

¶127

SON OF LATE BHOGI BORO R/O. VILLAGE- BETNA OUGURI P.O. MAHARIPARA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM.

¶128

30: SRI SANTI RAM BORO

¶129

SON OF SRI KANTA RAM BORO R/O. VILLAGE- BETNA OUGURI P.O. MAHARIPARA P.S GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM. VERSUS

¶130

Page No.# 16/28

¶131

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI GHY- 3 KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶132

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATIN DEPTT. ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY.- 3 KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATIN ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY.- 3 KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶133

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶134

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶135

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶136

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S KATAKI

¶137

Page No.# 17/28

¶138

Advocate for the Respondent : SC IRRIGATION

¶139

Linked Case : WP(C) 6555/2011

¶140

1:NITYANANDA MALI and 9 ORS S/O KHAGEN CH. MALI VILL and P.O.- BAIHATA P.S.- KAMALPUR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 2: MD. DUDUL CHOUDHURY S/O MD. AMZED ALI VILL and P.O. BHOGPUR P.S.- GOREMUR DIST- NALBARI ASSAM

¶141

3: AKKEL ALI S/O MD. AKBOR ALI VILL- NATBAMA H.NO.19 P.O. and P.S.- HATIGAON GUWHATI DIST- KAMRUPM ASSAM

¶142

4: SISHIR KR. DAS S/O PRABHAT DAS VILL and P.O. BONGSHOR P.S. SUALKUCHI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 5: DHIRAJ KALITA S/O SRI LAKSHI RAM KALITA VILL PURAN KATAHI P.O. and P.S.- CHHAYGAON DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶143

6: RAMEN SAUD

¶144

S/O DINESH SAUD VILL and P.O. MOROWA P.S. NALBARI DIST- NALBARI

Page No.# 18/28

ASSAM

7: AZGAR ALI

S/O MD. ABDUL ALI VILL- HATIGAON P.S. and P.O. HATIGAON GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUPM ASSAM 8: BHARAT CH. DAS S/O LATE KUHIRAM DAS VILL- RAJAPUKHURI P.O. and P.S. BHAGADUTTAPUR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶149

9: KRISHNA KANTA BAYAN

¶150

S/O SRI ANANTA RAM BAYAN VILL- PACHIM BORAGAON P.O. and P.S. GORCHUK GUWAHATI DIST- MAKRUP ASSAM

¶151

10: RAJU KUMAR BAYAN S/O SRI ANANTA RAM BAYAN VILL- MISSION ROAD W.NO.5 P.O. and P.S. UDALGURI DIST- UDALGURI ASSAM VERSUS

¶152

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

¶153

Page No.# 19/28

¶154

ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINNER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDAMRI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM

¶155

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A N CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC IRRIGATION

¶156

Linked Case : WP(C) 6559/2011 1:BABU MONI DEKA AND ORS S/O SRI NANDA RAM DEKA R/O- GARUBAZAR RANGIA KAMRUP

¶157

Page No.# 20/28

¶158

ASSAM

¶159

2: MOON KR. DEKA S/O SRI NANDA RAM DEKA R/O GARUBAZAR RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM 3: MRIDUL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE LOKNATH CHOUDHURY R/O DAHATI BARPETA BARPETA ASSAM 4: PARAG DAS S/O SRI HAREN DAS R/O KUMRIKATHA BASKA ASSAM VERSUS

¶160

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶161

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶162

Page No.# 21/28

¶163

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ZONE-II ASSAM TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM

¶164

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEZPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R M DAS Advocate for the Respondent :

¶165

BEFORE

¶166

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶167

JUDGMENT

¶168

Date : 01-02-2018

¶169

Heard Mr. S Kataki, counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.5532/2012, WP(C) No. 1070/2012, WP(C) No.150/2013, WP(C) No.2939/2013, WP(C) No.577/2012, WP(C) No.6315/2012, WP(C) No.6555/2011 and WP(C) No. 6559/2011. Also heard Dr. B Ahmed, Standing counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondents.

¶170

2. The cases are being disposed off by this common judgment and order as the subject matter in issue is the same.

¶171

3. The petitioners, by way of the above writ petitions, have prayed for payment of arrear

¶172

Page No.# 22/28

¶173

salaries, which has not been paid to the petitioners since 10.10.1999.

¶174

4. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment and order dated 04.09.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5580/2002, in making a claim for payment of their arrear salaries on the ground that the petitioners herein are similarly situated as the petitioners in WP(C) No.5580/2002.

¶175

5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.08.1998, published in a local daily for filling up of different posts in the Irrigation Department, Tezpur Division, the petitioners took part in the selection process and were accordingly selected for the same. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.10.1999, the petitioners were appointed to different posts under the Irrigation Department. The petitioners submitted their joining reports on 10.10.1999 and had gone to attend their works. To cut a long story short, the petitioners were not allowed to work w.e.f. 10.10.1999 and they were also not given any salary. Some persons, who had been selected and appointed similarly as the petitioners and on the basis of the same selection process, approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 6936/2000, claiming payment of arrear salaries as well as to allow them to continue their services.

¶176

6. WP(C) No.6936/2000 was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2001, which is as follows:-

¶177

“Heard Mr. M H Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T C Chutia, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam.

¶178

The case of the 74 petitioners in this writ petition is that they have been selected for appointment to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in Tezpur Irrigation Division, and have been appointed against the said posts by order dated 08.10.1999. pursuant to the said orders they joined in their respective places of posting and submitted joining reports to the Executive Engineer, Tezpur Irrigation Division, Tezpur, but they have not been paid their salary as year. They have therefore moved this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

¶179

Page No.# 23/28

¶180

It appears from Annexure-5 to the writ petition that the petitioners have submitted a representation to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, stating all relevant facts and making a prayer that their monthly pay and allowances be released as early as possible.

¶181

I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that a certified copy of this order and a copy of the writ petition with all its Annexures including Annexure-5 be filed before the Commissioner & Secretary, Irrigation Department, who will consider the representation in Annexure-5 and pass orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioners within one month of the receipt of the said copies from the petitioners.”

¶182

7. In pursuance to the order dated 03.01.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.6936/2000, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Department issued a speaking order dated 21.10.2002 holding that the appointments had been made without holding an interview and without processing the same through a Selection Board, which was to be headed by a Superintending Engineer. The speaking order held that the documents were manipulated to enable the petitioners in WP(C) No.6936/2000 to gain employment through a back door policy. Further, no record being available with regard to issuance of any appointment letters, the claim of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6936/2000 was rejected.

¶183

8. No appeal was filed against the speaking order dated 21.10.2002 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Department in pursuance to the order passed in WP(C) No. 6936/2000. Thereafter, another batch of persons, which did not include the present petitioners, filed WP(C) No. 5580/2002 claiming unpaid arrear salaries and to allow them to work. Said WP(C) No. 5580/2002 was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2009, which is as follows:-

¶184

“42. As appointment of the petitioners are not illegal and irregular, rather regular appointment, though there are some procedural lapses, those cases have no application in the instant case. Hence, those cases are not of much help to the State respondents, rather to decide the dispute involved in this case,

¶185

Page No.# 24/28

¶186

the decision of this Court in Arup Kr. Sarma Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (WP(C) No.6286/2007) would be of much helpful. As it is stated earlier that when the appointment was valid and the petitioners had submitted their joining reports which were also accepted by the authority concerned, it would be improper on the part of the Court to deny them to get their salary, more particularly, in view of the inquiry report of the Additional Chief Engineer of the Department and in view for the note of the L.R. of the Government of Assam. This Court is of further opinion that for the mistake as well as procedural and administrative lapses, the appointees like the petitioners should not be deprived from their legitimate right of getting their salaries when they were admittedly not working in any other post during this period considering the fact that their appointments were not cancelled by the authority meanwhile.

¶187

It is submitted that the petitioner joined their respective posts from time to time after issuing of the appointment letters and till today, they have not been paid anything towards their pay and allowances. It is an admitted position that the State respondents did not prefer any appeal against the interim order of this Court dated 06.09.2002 by which this Court directed the respondents to examine as to whether the petitioners were appointed after due selection against the available sanctioned posts and, if so, to pay 50% of the pay and allowances as admissible for them for their service and also to ensure the regular payment of current salary. The respondents authorities have no right to deprive the petitioners from the benefit of the said order. More so, it is the respondents who did not allow the petitioners to discharge their duties, even when they were appointed by a duly constituted selection committee. When the petitioners are not aware about the procedure relating to rotation/movement of the file of the Government and in no way involved with the matter, as also held by this Court in the discussion made above that this is not a case of appointment dehors the rules, rather a case of procedural lapses on the part of the respondents authorities, the petitioners cannot be deprived for such lapses. Not only that the action of the respondents is, according to this Court, an illegal

¶188

Page No.# 25/28

¶189

action. The petitioners are entitled to 50% of the pay and allowances for the period prior to 06.09.2002 since their appointment and they are also entitled the regular payment of their salary on and from 06.09.2002. for the foregoing reasons and discussion, the respondents are directed to pay the salaries of the petitioners from the date of their joining.

¶190

The aforesaid direction shall be complied with by the respondent authorities forthwith. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and accordingly, it is disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶191

9. The respondents challenge to the judgment and order dated 04.09.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5580/2002 before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court was dismissed due to delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP filed by the respondents.

¶192

10. The petitioners’ counsel submits that though the petitioners were not a party to the earlier writ petition, i.e., WP(C) 5580/2002 or the writ petition filed prior to that, the petitioners being similarly situated as the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5580/2002, the direction given by this Court in WP(C) 5580/2002 should be made applicable to the petitioners herein, in view of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶193

11. The petitioners’ counsel thus prays that in view of the facts stated above, a direction should be issued to the State respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of unpaid arrear salaries and to allow them to discharge their duties as per their appointment orders.

¶194

12. Dr. B Ahmed, counsel for the Irrigation Department submits that all the appointment orders of the petitioners herein are manufactured documents and the Government have no records regarding their appointment orders. He also submits that the petitioners have not even worked for the Government for a single day. He submits that the entire selection and appointment has been made by the Executive Engineer, Tezpur Division, which is not inconformity with the Rules. He submits that the advertisement issued in the local daily, i.e., “The Mahajati” was not in circulation at the relevant point of time. Dr. B Ahmed, also submits

¶195

Page No.# 26/28

¶196

that the Superintending Engineer is the Chairman of the Selection Board for the posts in which the petitioners were appointed. However, there is no record of the Superintending Engineer having participated in any selection process.

¶197

13. The respondents counsel also submits that the petitioners’ appointment orders being manufactured documents, there is no question of there being any cancellation orders being issued by the State Government. He also submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed due to delay and laches.

¶198

14. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

¶199

15. The petitioners herein were appointed to different posts under the Irrigation Department, Tezpur Division on 08.10.1999. However, they have not worked for a single day and no salary has been given to them. The petitioners herein have however not made a challenge to the said non-payment of arrear salaries or not discharging their duties except by way of the present writ petitions that had been filed during 2012-2015.

¶200

16. The submissions made by the respondent’s counsel to the effect that the appointment orders of the petitioners are manufactured and are not a part of the official records are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court. Be that as it may, the present petitions suffer from laches and delay. They have been filed after 13 years from the date the petitioners were allegedly not allowed to work.

¶201

17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Apex Court held that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, the normal rule would be that all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, otherwise, it would be violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court further held that the above principle was however subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. The persons, who approached the Court later, trying to ride the piggy back upon the earlier judgments, would have to be a treated as fence-sitters and laches, delays and acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. In fact, the exact words of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) are reflected at paragraphs

¶202

Page No.# 27/28

¶203

22.1. and 22.2 and the same are quoted below:-

¶204

22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

¶205

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.”

¶206

18. In the present case, in order for the petitioners to get the benefit of the judgment and order dated 04.09.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5580/2002, they will have to satisfy the Court that the delay and laches in filing the present writ petitions are justified and sufficient cause is made out.

¶207

19. A perusal of the pleadings of the petitioners shows that no reasons have been given as to why they have approached this Court after a long delay of more than 13 years. They have acquiescenced to their predicament and woke up only after 13 years after the judgment and order was passed in WP(C) No. 5580/2002.

¶208

20. In view of the unexplained delay and laches in filing the writ petition and acquiescence

¶209

Page No.# 28/28

¶210

by the petitioners, it would be unjust to direct the respondents to give payment of alleged unpaid arrear salaries to the petitioners or to give a direction for allowing them to discharge their works as per their appointment orders. As the petitioners are fence-sitters, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in this case. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶211

JUDGE

¶212

Comparing Assistant

Md. Eunush Ali and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Eunush Ali and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pallabi Bora Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Uma Kanta Kalita Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Chakradhar Ray and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Babu Moni Deka and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Bulbul Ali and 36 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Mina Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.