Disposed

Bitupan Konwar and 14 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2022WP(C)/4481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging proposed inclusion of Computer Typists in the LDA/Typist cadre raised discrimination concerns. Court found petitions premature due to unfinished draft rules and lack of promotion decision; directed petitioners to approach appropriate authority first.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit representation to the appropriate authority ventilating their grievances.

Bitupan Konwar and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010169912020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5023/2020

¶5

BHARGAV BHUYAN AND ANR.

¶6

S/O. LT. BRAJEN BHUYAN, R/O. VILL. SANTINAGAR, P.O. SANTINAGAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781314.

¶7

2: DAINTY PATHAK S/O. DILIP KUMAR PATHAK VILL. DOLAHATI P.O. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781301

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶10

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781006.

¶11

2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶12

REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL GUWAHATI ASSAM-781001.

¶13

3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

¶14

BARPETA ASSAM-781301.

¶15

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

¶16

GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINCNCE DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶17

Page No.# 2/7

¶18

ASSAM-781006

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

Linked Case : WP(C)/4481/2020

¶22

BITUPAN KONWAR AND 14 ORS S/O- PRATAP KONWAR VILL- BEZORCHUK BORTUP BARHAMPUR DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶23

2: NIDARSHANA PATOWARY D/O- NARANARAYAN PATOWARY R/O- BAROWARY HAPPY VILL H.NO. 12 GHY DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶24

3: BHUPEN PATAR S/O- THANURAM PATAR R/O- NABHETI WARD NO. 9 NEAR PETROL PUMP DIST.- MORIGAON (ASSAM)

¶25

4: MAUCHUM RAMCHIARY S/O- KATTESWAR RAMCHIARY VILL- RATANPUR P.O. DIGHELI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM)

¶26

5: KAUSHIK BIKASH DEKA S/O- JATIN DEKA VILL- PUB SALMARA PHULAGUARI DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶27

6: SAURABH GUPTA S/O- DIPAK GUPTA

¶28

Page No.# 3/7

¶29

R/O- SHANKAR MISSION PATH POWER HOUSE TINIALI P.S. AND DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶30

7: DEBASHISH BHUYAN S/O- RAMEN BHUYAN R/O- SOUTH HAIBORGAON ANAND COLONY DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶31

8: JULKARNAIN AHMED S/O- BADRUL ISLAM VILL- PARMAIBHETI P.O. DAGAON DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶32

9: TAPAN BORAH S/O- MILON CHANDRA BORAH VILL- TELIA GAON P.O. PUBTHARIA P.S. KALIABOR DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶33

10: PRANABJYOTI BARUAH S/O- LT. NAGENDRA BARUAH VILL- BARAMBOI 3 NO. MANAHKUCHI P.O. BARAMBOI P.O. HAJO DIST.- KAMRUP (ASSAM)

¶34

11: SNIGDHA RABHA D/O- TAKESWAR RABHA R/O- GULIAN PARA DARANGGIRI RANGJULI DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM)

¶35

12: BRITOSINGH KHOLAR S/O- DELING STENG VILL- AMKACHI P.O. ULUKUNHI DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG (ASSAM) 13: SAHIDUL ALAM CHOWDHURY S/O- ZAHIR AHMED CHOWDHURY R/O- CHANDMARI NAVAGIRI ROAD

¶36

Page No.# 4/7

¶37

4TH BYELANE MASJID CAMPUS AMBIKAGIRI PARK GHY DIST.- KAMRUP (M) 14: DEVRAJ SARMAH S/O- BASANTA KUMAR SARMAH R/O- PARBAT NAGAR NEAR SSB CAMP TEZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR (ASSAM) 15: KUMARJIT DEY S/O- KANUJESWAR DEY R/O- OPP. SBI BEHIND SMEC OFFICE LANKA ROAD P.O. LUMDING DIST.- HOJAI (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL GHY-1 3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE NAGAON 4:THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE DISPUR GHY-6 -----------Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶38

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶39

Page No.# 5/7

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Date : 16/03/2022

¶42

Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 5023/2020 and Ms. S.S. Zia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) 4481/2020. I have also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None has appeared for the respondent no. 1.

¶43

The writ petitioners herein were all appointed in the cadre of LDA/Copyist/Typist. The petitioners in WP(C) 5023/2020 were posted under the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta whereas, the petitioners in WP(C) 4481/2020 were posted under the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon.

¶44

While they were serving in their respective posts, the Registrar (Admn)-cum-In-charge of the Centralised Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, had issued notification dated 04/03/2020 (Annexure-5) notifying that henceforth, the posts of Computer Typist in the subordinate Courts of Assam shall also be treated as equivalent to LDA, Copyist and Typist for the purpose of promotion since their pay-scale is same as that of LDA/Copyist/Typist. Subsequently, a proposal for amendment of Rule 12 of the Assam District Court Employees Service Rules, was also brought forward so as to include the Computer Typists in the same cadre as the LDA/Copyist and Typist. Thereafter, the draft rules have been forwarded to the Government of Assam for doing the needful after obtaining the approval of the Full Court.

¶45

As per the submission made at the bar, the draft rules are yet to receive the approval of the Government of Assam.

¶46

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners have argued that if the Computer Typist are also included in the same cadre as that of LDA, Copyist and Typist, than the promotional avenues of the existing employees would be severely restricted, thereby prejudicially affecting the interest of the writ petitioners and the other similarly situated employees.

¶47

Page No.# 6/7

¶48

Responding to the above, Mr. Das has argued that the impugned decision was taken in view of the fact that the Computer Typists were also appointed with the same qualification and in the same pay scale and by following the same recruitment process. Therefore, in order to avoid any discrimination in the matter, the Computer Typists have also been made a part of the same cadre so as top provide them with proper promotional avenue. On such count, Mr. Das has argued that there is no valid ground for this Court to interfere in this matter.

¶49

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, disagreed with the said

¶50

submission and has argued that Computer Typists are not in the same category as that of LDA, Copyist and Typist since the post was created at a much later stage. According to Mr. Sarma, discrimination, if any, is being meted out to the writ petitioners herein and not the Computer Typists.

¶51

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. It appears that the draft rules are yet to be finalized. That apart, it is also not known as to whether any of the petitioners are eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. There is also no decision to promote any employee belonging to the aforesaid cadre. As such, the writ petitions prima facie appear to be pre-mature.

¶52

It also appears from the materials on record that the writ petitioners have not agitated their grievance before the competent authority before approaching this Court. If that be so, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should ventilate their grievances before the appropriate authority before approaching this Court. As such, without commenting on the merit of the claim and counter claim of the parties and as agreed to by the lerned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, I dispose of the writ petitions by granting leave to the writ petitioners to submit representation before the appropriate authority ventilating their grievances in the matter.

¶53

If such representation is filed, the same may be looked into in accordance with law and appropriate order be passed thereon.

¶54

If the petitioners continue to remain aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it would be open

¶55

Page No.# 7/7

¶56

for them to approach this Court once again.

¶57

With the above observation, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶58

Interim order, if any, passed earlier, shall stand vacated.

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

sukhamay

¶61

Comparing Assistant

Bitupan Konwar and 14 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bitupan Konwar and 14 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Md. Altab Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Imran Uddin Chowdhury Vs Anowara Khatun and 10 Ors.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Bhabani Print and Publications and 4 Ors.

Bhargav Bhuyan and Anr. Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ajit Kumar Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.