Dismissed

Binanda Mozinder Boruah v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/1397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of the petitioner's casual service. The court held that the petitioner, engaged since 2008, did not meet the ten-year continuous service eligibility under the Government of Assam Notification dated 27.06.2013, which was based on the Umadevi judgment. Thus, regularization could not be allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for regularization and direction to dispose of representation dated 08.08.2020 dismissed.

Binanda Mozinder Boruah Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010033612021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1397/2021

¶5

BINANDA MOZINDER BORUAH

¶6

S/O. ANIL MOZINDER BORUAH, VILL. BETBARI KAKOTI GAON, P.O. SUKANPUKHURI, P.S. SIVASAGAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF INFOAMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONA ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

3:THE DIST. INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BURAGOHAIN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 08-03-2021

¶18

Heard Ms. S. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner has been engaged as a technician/operator in the Office of the District Information and Public Relations Office, Sivasagar in the year 2008 on casual/temporary basis.

¶19

The petitioner had submitted various representations before the concerned authority, one of them being representation dated 08.08.2020 to the Director, Information and Public Relations to regularize the petitioner’s service and to absorb the petitioner into a vacant post. The petitioner’s counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the Director, Information and Public Relations to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 08.08.2020.

¶20

Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appears for all the respondents and he submits that as per Annexure-G 1 of the writ petition, which is a certificate issued by the District Information and Public Relations Officer, Sivasagar, the petitioner has been rendering service to the office as and when required for technical works, especially during VIP and VVIP programmes. He accordingly submits that there is no question of regularization or absorbing the petitioner, who is a casual employee to a regular sanctioned post without following the Rules.

¶21

In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that a regularization cannot be another form for recruitment. However, it provided that those persons who were in service for 10 (ten) years at the time the judgment was passed in Umadevi (3) (Supra) in a regular sanctioned post and whose appointments were not illegal could be considered for regularization as a one time measure. The same was enumerated in para 53 of the said judgment.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Pursuant to the above, the Finance Department, Government of Assam has issued a Notification dated 27.06.2013, wherein as a onetime measure, regularization of irregularly employed persons was allowed in terms of para 53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (Supra) and State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in 2010 9 SCC 247. The Government of Assam notification dated 27.06.2013 provided that the eligibility criteria for one time regularization would be applicable for those who had been working continuously for 10 (ten) years as on the date the judgment in Umadevi (3) (Supra) had been rendered. It further stated that the person should have been engaged in a sanctioned vacant post and should have the requisite qualification to hold the post. The judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (Supra) was rendered on 10.04.2006.

¶24

As the petitioner herein has been engaged on casual/temporary basis only from the year 2008, the petitioner’s prayer for regularization cannot be considered by this Court in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court and the notification dated 27.06.2013 made by the Government of Assam.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Binanda Mozinder Boruah v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binanda Mozinder Boruah v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrinal Pathak Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jyotirmoy Das Boro Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Mst Sajiran Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Pramila Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dilip Kumar Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prabhat Ch Das Vs Mukul Kumar Saikia and 3 Ors.