Allowed

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2022WP(C)/3725/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, surrendered extremists regularized in Grade-IV posts, sought promotion to Grade-III. The Court directed respondents to consider their cases for promotion to the limit of 15% of annual vacancies within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioners' cases for promotion to Grade-III posts to the extent of 15% of annual vacancies within three months of the order date.

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010016402015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3725/2015

¶5

DIPAK KUMAR BARUAH and 5 ORS

¶6

S/O LT. NABIN CH. BARUAH R/O VILL and P.O. KURHIMARI P.S. ULUWANI DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SHRI GIRIN CH. TALUKDAR

¶8

S/O LT. KANAK TALUKDAR R/O VILL and P.O. BYASHKUCHI P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA

¶9

ASSAM.

¶10

3: SHRI TARUN CH. NATH

¶11

S/O PADMA KANTA NATH R/O VILL and P.O. SARAGAON P.S. ROHA DIST. NAGAON

¶12

ASSAM.

¶13

4: SHRI ROMEN HAZARIKA

¶14

S/OLT. DURGA HAZARIKA R/O VILL- SHANTIPUR P.O. BHUMURAGURI P.S. KALIABOR DIST. NAGAON

¶15

ASSAM.

¶16

5: SHRI HEMANTA KAKATI

¶17

S/OLT. AKAN KAKATI R/O VILL- DAKHINPAT P.O. BALIGAON P.S. and DIST. NAGAON

¶18

ASSAM

¶19

6: SHRI PRADIP CH. NATH

¶20

S/OLT. DIMBESWAR NATH R/O VILL and P.O. BHUMURAGURI P.S. KALIABOR DIST. NAGAON ASSA

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶23

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶24

Page No.# 2/4

¶25

2:THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM ASSAM RAILWAY STATION ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001

¶26

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J M GOGOI

¶27

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶28

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Date : 01-09-2022

¶31

Heard Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H Sarma, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶32

The petitioners are surrendered extremists, who have joined the main stream. The petitioners were thereafter appointed to various Grade-IV stipendary posts in the year 1994 and 1995 under a Special Scheme made by the Government. The services of the petitioners were thereafter regularised vide various office orders between 1995 and 2001. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been stagnating in their Grade-IV posts for more than 20 (twenty) years. The petitioners thus pray that a direction should be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to Grade-III posts.

¶33

Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that one Sri Dilip Neog, who was also appointed with the writ petitioners was regularised in the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III). However, the said Sri Dilip Neog, who was similarly situated as the petitioners, had been promoted from a Grade-IV post to a Grade-III post. He accordingly submits that the petitioners

¶34

Page No.# 3/4

¶35

being similarly situated, the petitioners can also be considered for promotion to Grade-III posts.

¶36

Mr. H Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were appointed in the Tourism Department against stipendary posts on the basis of a Government Policy, which was a rehabilitation programme for surrendered ULFA members. He submits that as per para No. 8 of the affidavitin-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners would be upgraded to the next higher post, if they are eligible. However, the upgradation/promotion of the petitioners would be limited to 15% of the vacancies that arise in a year. He also submits that the upgradation/promotion of the petitioners would be done as per the extant Government Guidelines/Policy, subject to availability of vacancies.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶38

Para Nos. 8 and 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, is to the effect that the petitioners would be considered for promotion to the next higher post, to the limit of 15% of the annual vacancies, provided they are eligible for promotion in terms of the extant Government Guidelines/Policy, subject to availability of vacancies. Further, para 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition shows that vacancies to Grade-III posts are available.

¶39

The extract of para 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition states as follows:-

¶40

“11. That as regards the averments made in paragraph 11 of the Petition, the answering deponent states that as on date, there are 11 nos. of vacancies of Junior Assistants in the District Level, 6 nos. of Junior Assistants in the Head Quarter, 2 nos. of Receptionists and 2 nos. of Store Keeper. However,

¶41

Page No.# 4/4

¶42

appointment, promotion or Upgradation to the next higher post in respect of the instant Writ Petitioners can and will be done only upon receipt of approval from the Government as per the Rules and existing Guidelines.”

¶43

In view of the categorical stand taken by the State respondents that the cases of the petitioners would be considered for promotion, as indicated above, and keeping in view that there are vacancies in Grade-III posts, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the limit of 15% of the annual vacancies, after following all due procedures. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶44

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Rupkonwar Brahma Vs the Union of India and 20 Ors.

Birendra Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Fatema Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ashish Kumar Dey Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Ratneswar Deka Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.