Dismissed

Ajit Kalita v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2018WP(C)/4462/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This five-judge bench observed that reducing the petitioner's assigned blocks from two to one under a contractual engagement does not reduce pay or affect service conditions, as initial orders placed him at the disposal of both block officers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to join Bihdia-Jajikona Development Block as per impugned letter.

Ajit Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010145492018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4462/2018

¶5

1:AJIT KALITA

¶6

S/O- SRI CHANA RAM KALITA, R/O- VILL- AND P.O- BORPALAHA, DISTKAMRUP(R), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT JURIPAR PANJABARI GHY- 37

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP CUM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DRDA KAMRUP AMINGAON GUWAHATI- 31

¶12

4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY KAMRUP AMINGAON GHY- 31

¶13

5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BEZERA AND BIHDIA JAJIKONA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BEZERA KAMRUP (R) ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : D. Nath, GA, Assam.

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 01-08-2018

¶20

Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that he was initially engaged as a Block MIS Manager, IAY, on 01/03/2016 and posted at Bezera Development Block. While the petitioner was rendering his services, the petitioner's services was terminated on 12/08/2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court vide WP(C) No. 5611/2017 and this Court vide order dated 14/05/2018, set aside the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into his contractual engagement.

¶21

The petitioner's counsel submits that instead of reinstating the petitioner back into his contractual engagement, the respondent no. 4 has directed the petitioner to join Bihdia Jajikona Development Block vide the impugned communication dated 27/06/2018. The petitioner's counsel

¶22

submits that as this Court vide order dated 14/05/2018, had directed that the petitioner be reinstated back into his contractual engagement, the petitioner should have been reinstated back as Block MIS Manager (IAY) at Bezera Development Block and he could not have been reinstated into the Bihdia Jajikona Development Block.

¶23

Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's initial contractual engagement as Block MIS Manager, shows that he was placed under the disposal of the BDOs, Bezera and Bihdia-Jajikona Development Blocks with effect from 01/03/2016. The petitioner was accordingly engaged as Block MIS Manager at Bezera and Bihdia Development Block for all schemes to be implemented under the IAY for the said two blocks. As the respondents were not in a position to execute the schemes that had been launched in the Bezera Development Block, the petitioner was to be given his contractual re-engagement in respect of

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

Bihdia-Jajikona Development Block only. However, the petitioner has refused to accept the same.

¶26

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

¶27

The initial appointment order of the petitioner on contractual basis vide letter dated 01/03/2016 issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Kamrup, states that “his services are placed at the disposal of the BDO, Bezera and Bihdia Jajikona Development Block with effect from 01/03/2016”

¶28

The terms of contractual engagement of the petitioner as MIS Manager (IAY) at Sl. No. 1, states as follows :-

¶29

“ 1. Designation : The contractual staff will be engaged as Block MIS Manager at Bezera & Bihdia Jajikona Dev. Block for all schemes being implemented under the IAY in the said Block area.”

¶30

The operative portion of the order dated 14/05/2018 states as follows :-

¶31

“In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and accordingly the communication dated 01.07.2016 written by the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the respondent No. 5 are set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner back into his contractual engagement. However, considering the nature of the case, this Court is not inclined to give any direction for payment of back wages. The matter is however left open to the respondents. The respondents are also given the liberty to take appropriate steps against the petitioner, if so advised, but in accordance of law.

¶32

Writ petition is disposed of .”

¶33

The impugned letter dated 27/06/2018 issued by the office of the DRDA, Kamrup and addressed to the petitioner states as follows :-

¶34

“ Sir,

¶35

With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that you have refused to receive the contractual re-engagement letter issued to you on 20/6/2018 vide this office letter as mentioned above.

¶36

In this respect, it is to inform you that, though the PMAY-G Programme has been

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

launched by the Govt. in Bezera Dev. Block, we are not in a position to execute the same due to some unavoidable circumstances, In the meantime, you have been engaged as Block MIS Manager to look after the works on PMAY-G Programme in Bihdia- Jajikona Dev. Block.

¶39

Therefore, you are directed to receive the contractual re-engagement letter immediately from office of the undersigned and join in the new place of posting at BihdiaJajikona Dev. Block and report to this office accordingly,

¶40

Matter may be treated as urgent.”

¶41

Though, this Court vide order dated 14/05/2018 passed in WP(C) No. 5611/2017, had directed that the petitioner be reinstated back into his contractual engagement, the respondents, vide the impugned order has attempted to re-engage the petitioner only in respect of BihdiaJajikona Development Block, as the Programmes that were to be launched in the Bezera Development Block could not be executed by the DRDA, due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶42

Be that as it may, the petitioner's initial contractual engagement order dated 01/03/2016 had placed the petitioner at the disposal of the BDOs of both Bezera and Bihdia-Jajikona Development Blocks. Thus, the petitioner was the Block MIS Manager for both Bezera and Bihdia- Jajikona Development Blocks, prior to issuance of his termination order. The subsequent re-engagement of the petitioner only for the Bihdia-Jajikona Development Block, sans the Bezera Development Block, does not, in the opinion of this Court, cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Just because the petitioner has not been re-engaged for the two blocks and only for one block, after the judgement of this Court, does not mean that his pay is going to be reduced or that his condition of service are going to be effected. This Court does not find any violation of the petitioner's fundamental or legal right by issuance of the impugned letter. Further, by attempting to re-engage the petitioner for the Bihdia-Jajikona Development Block, there has been substantial compliance of the order dated 14/05/2018 passed in WP(C) No. 5611/2017.

¶43

Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in this case.

¶44

Page No.# 5/5

¶45

The writ petition being devoid of any merit , is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

The respondents are, however, directed to allow the petitioner to join in the Bihdia-

¶47

Jajikona development Block as per the impugned letter dated 27/06/2018.

¶48

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Sukhamay

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Ajit Kalita v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kalita v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaba Kanta Dihingia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kushal Boro Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Pramila Roy Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 5 Ors.

Aminul Hoque Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Raihana Akhtar and 28 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nalini Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.