Disposed

Promud Borgohain and 18 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Aug 2021WP(C)/2820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disposal of the petitioners' application for age relaxation in government employment. The Court held the right to seek relaxation survives and directed the respondent to entertain fresh applications once an advertisement is issued, relying on a prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent Dir., IWT to entertain fresh representations from petitioners immediately upon issuance of the employment advertisement, disregarding the previous order dismissing them as

Promud Borgohain and 18 Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010067872021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2820/2021

¶5

PROMUD BORGOHAIN AND 18 ORS S/O LATE SARBOSWAR BORGOHAIN, VILL. NAMDANG GOHAIN GAON, P.O. KUMURAJAN, P.S. GAURISAGAR, DIST. SIBSAGAR, ASSAM.

¶6

2: ANANTA LAHAN

¶7

S/O LATE BHUBANESWAR LAHAN VILL. MAJU MELIA GAON P.O. PHUL PANI CHIGA P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIBSAGAR ASSAM.

¶8

3: RANJIT SAKIA S/O SRI BOHIRA SAKIA VILL. CHARAIMURIA GAON P.O. CHARAIMURIA P.S. AMGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶9

4: TRIDIP BORUAH

¶10

S/O SRI PRABITRA BORUAH VILL. KHANAMUKH 1 NO. MOUT P.O. KHANAMUKH P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶11

5: BIJIT GOGOI

¶12

S/O LATE TANKESWAR GOGOI VILL. CHARININGA

¶13

Page No.# 2/9

¶14

P.O. PHUL PANI CHIGA P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶15

6: RAJIB BURAGOHAIN

¶16

S/O LT. BHUPEN BURAGOHIAN VILL. NAMDANG GOHAIN GAON P.O. KUMURAJAN P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶17

7: RUBUL DUTTA

¶18

S/O LATE TUKESWAR DUTTA VILL. NAPAM BOKAJAN P.O. NAPAM P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶19

8: BINUD DUTTA

¶20

S/O LATE HEMO DUTTA VILL. KOCHGAON P.O. MOUT GAON P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.

¶21

9: PRABHAT KHONGIA S/O LATE DEBEN KHONGIA VILL. DIMUAL P.O. DHITAI PUKURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶22

10: AMBIKA PATGIRI

¶23

S/O LATE BIPIN PATGIRI VILL. AND P.O. AMBARI P.S. DHUPDHARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM.

¶24

11: PARAG CHALIHA

¶25

Page No.# 3/9

¶26

S/O LATE ATUL CHALIHA VILL. PADUMONI P.O. HATIGHULI P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶27

12: JITU DUTTA

¶28

S/O AKON DUTTA VILL. MURA KATA P.O. MORAN GAON P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶29

13: RANTU DUTTA

¶30

S/O LATE HAREN DUTTA VILL. JALIK GAON P.O. AMBARI P.S.AMGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶31

14: AKHTER HUSSAIN

¶32

S/O LATE BASIR ALI VILL. PATRAPUR P.O. KENDUA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM.

¶33

15: MIRHUSSAIN ALI

¶34

VILL. PATRAPUR P.O. KENDUA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM.

¶35

16: HIFJUL HUSSAIN

¶36

S/O AFZAL ALI VILL. PATRAPUR P.O. KENDUA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM.

¶37

Page No.# 4/9

¶38

17: MD. SAYEDUL ISLAM

¶39

S/O LATE MANJUR ALI VILL. PATRAPUR P.O. KENDUA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM.

¶40

18: MAMTAZ ALI

¶41

S/O LATE MUSLIM ALI VILL. RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM.

¶42

19: SAILEN CHANDRA RABHA

¶43

S/O LATE PURAM RABHA VILL. BOKDOBHA .O. LOHARGHAT DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶44

VERSUS

¶45

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶46

2:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶47

TRANSPORT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPTT.

¶48

ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 78100

¶49

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN

¶50

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT

¶51

Page No.# 5/9

¶52

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Date : 05.08.2021

¶55

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department.

¶56

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.08.1998, the petitioners had undertaken six months crew-training programme commencing from 01.03.1999 to 30.08.1999 and they hold completion certificate.

¶57

The grievance of the petitioners is that since 1999, they had not received any employment. Accordingly, the petitioners had submitted a representation for appointment against vacant posts of Crewman in the IWT, but having received no response, the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) 3760/2008 and this Court by order dated 08.09.2008, had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation dated 25.08.2008 on merit.

¶58

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite

¶59

Page No.# 6/9

¶60

the order passed in WP(C) 3760/2008, the respondents have not communicated as to whether any decision was taken on the representation dated 25.08.2008.

¶61

It is projected that Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department by a letter dated 30.10.2020 had informed the Director, IWT (respondent no.3) that the Government had approved for filling up 113 numbers of vacant GradeIV posts (Laskar and Greaser) under the respondent no.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that although the respondent no.3 had submitted a list of crew trainees for consideration, but the proposal of the respondent no. 3 was returned by a letter dated 27.01.2021 with a direction to re-submit the same showing the present age of the trained crews and the period of age which is required to be relaxed with justification.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time the petitioners had not cross the maximum upper age limit to get Government service, but due to passage of time, the petitioners have become overaged and therefore, the age was required to be relaxed for the purpose of considering their case for employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the notification dated 03.05.1951 which is with regard to the relaxation of upper age limit.

¶63

The learned standing counsel for the respondents has referred to the representation dated 04.03.2021 annexed to this writ petition and it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 by an office order dated 15.07.2021 had observed that the matter was premature and necessary action would be taken

¶64

Page No.# 7/9

¶65

once the advertisement is issued and accordingly, the joint representation submitted by the petitioners was disposed of.

¶66

The learned standing counsel has also referred to an office memorandum bearing no. ABP.6/2016/51 dated 02.09.2020 by which upper age limit for entry into the State Government service for Grade-III and Grade-IV posts has been raised from existing 43 years up to 45 years. Clause 3 of the said O.M. is quoted below:

¶67

“3. There shall be no change in the procedure of recruitment or any relaxation of educational or other qualification or service conditions such as year or age of retirement, etc. This relaxation shall be applicable only to those candidates who have attained the necessary educational or other qualifications prior to crossing of their existing upper age limit of 40 years. The application of this O.M. will also be limited to vacant posts for which advertisements are made on or after the date of effect of this O.M.”

¶68

Having taken note of the projection that the petitioners had completed their six months crew-training programme commencing from 01.03.1999 to 30.08.1999 and by an office order dated 30.08.1999, the name of the petitioners was included in the list of successful candidates who had being released after training and that since then the petitioners were patiently waiting for being employed against the vacant posts of Laskar and Greaser in the IWT Department and that they had submitted their representation immediately after coming to know that the State government had granted approval for filling up 113 numbers of vacant Grade-IV posts (Laskar and Greaser) and submitted representation for relaxation of their age, the Court is of the considered opinion

¶69

Page No.# 8/9

¶70

that the State has set into motion the due process for filling up 113 numbers of vacant Grade-IV posts (Laskar and Greaser).

¶71

Under such circumstances, notwithstanding that the respondent no.3 had disposed of the representation dated 04.03.2021 submitted by the petitioners by an order dated 15.07.2021 as premature, the Court is inclined to direct that the life of the petitioners to seek relaxation of their upper age is still alive and would not ceased by disposal of the said representation by order dated 15.07.2021 and their right would come into the force as and when the employment advertisement is issued.

¶72

Having noticed the mandate of this Court in the case of Pranab Kumar Deka & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors., (2016) 1 GLR 391, the Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit their fresh representation immediately after the employment advertisement is issued and notwithstanding the disposal of the petitioners’ joint representation dated 04.03.2021 by office order no. DWT-91/2021/101 dated 15.07.2021 by the respondent no.3, the said respondent no. 3 shall entertain the fresh representation of the petitioners and the said authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and by taking into consideration the office O.M. No. ABP.6/2016/51 dated 02.09.2020 as well as the ratio of the above referred case of Pranab Kumar Deka (supra).

¶73

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶74

Page No.# 9/9

¶75

Instruction produced by the learned standing counsel is retained on record.

¶76

JUDGE

¶77

Comparing Assistant

Promud Borgohain and 18 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Promud Borgohain and 18 Ors. 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

Shamez Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Force No. 041703192 Ct/Gd Hitesh Deka Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Karge Kamki Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Bhogeswar Das Vs the State of Assam

Kasrul Alam Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Omprakash Meena (GS-198111A) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.