Disposed

Md. Shahidul Islam v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Apr 2022WP(C)/2309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularisation and pay scale for casual service in Food Corporation of India. Court directed General Manager, FCI, Reg. Office, Guwahati to examine petitioner's representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to GM, FCI, Regional Office, Guwahati to examine petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2018 and take a decision within two months.

Md. Shahidul Islam Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010059432022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2309/2022

¶5

MD. SHAHIDUL ISLAM

¶6

S/O- MAHMUD ALI, R/O- MOIRABARI, P.O AND P.S- MOIRABRI, DISTMORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782126

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, NEW DELHI-110001

¶9

2:FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001

¶10

3:THE ZONAL OFFICE

¶11

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ZONAL MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781007

¶12

4:THE REGIONAL OFFICE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER (REGION) PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781008

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:THRE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (REGIONAL) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE ASSAM REGION PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781008

¶15

6:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NE) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA N.E ZONE UNDER THE ZONAL OFFICE PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781008

¶16

7:THE AREA MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DIST. OFFICE - HAIBORGAON N.H-37 NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782002

¶17

8:THE MANAGER (GENERAL) DEPOT- IN - CHARGE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD SUPPLY DEPOT (FSD) SECHOWA NAGAON ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 01.04.2022

¶24

Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has been engaged on causal basis by the FCI since 2013 and in view of his long years of service, he should be regularised into the FCI.

¶25

He also prays that the petitioner should be given the minimum pay scale of AG-III or AG-IV, as the petitioner has been regularly working in the said two posts on casual basis.

¶26

Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel for the FCI submits that the petitioner is not working in the FCI and as such, there is no question of regularisation of the petitioner’s service. Also, there is no question of payment of the minimum pay scale.

¶27

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petition can be closed, if a direction is issued to the General Manager, (Region), FCI, Regional Office, Guwahati to examine the petitioner’s representation dated 02.08.2018 (Annexure – 40) and take a decision on the same within a specific time period.

¶28

On perusing the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner has submitted numerous representations to the authorities, praying for appointment in the FCI. One of the representations is at Annexure-40, which is a representation dated 02.08.2018.

¶29

On considering the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that there are disputed questions of fact, this Court is of the view that the writ petition should be disposed of at the motion stage itself, with a direction to the respondents to examine the petitioner’s representation.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Accordingly, the General Manager, (Region), FCI, Regional Office, is directed to examine the petitioner’s representation dated 02.08.2018 (Annexure – 40) and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be accompanied with a copy of the writ petition.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Md. Shahidul Islam v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shahidul Islam v. the Union of India and 7 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

Bangprondi Hojai Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ex Gd/Nk Jaimal Singh No. 710604379 Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sharda Lunkar Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Mukteswar Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dipak Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Boloram Deka and 26 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.