Disposed

Matab Uddin v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jan 2022WP(C)/5432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking regular appointment. The court directed respondents to consider his case under the Uma Devi guidelines and either verify his claim of over 10 years service or provide a suitable economic package.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's claim of service and either verify it or provide a suitable economic package within six months.

Matab Uddin Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010163072021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5432/2021

¶5

MATAB UDDIN S/O ABDUR RAHMAN VILLAGE LATHIMARA, PS KATHIGARAH DIST CACHAR, ASSAM 788805

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN , ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN, GUWAHATI 781001

¶8

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶9

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI 781001

¶10

3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE - B APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF OFFICE CUM FIELD ASSISTANT (EXPERIENCED) BIJULEE BHAWAN 781001

¶11

4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.HRA.

¶12

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI 78100

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶17

order

¶18

10.01.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. MA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned standing counsel, APDCL.

¶20

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is decided by this court vide an order dated 23.02.2021 passed in WP(C) 1351/2020.

¶21

The petitioner, who claims to be working as Meter Reader since the year 2006 with the respondents has approached this court for a direction for consideration of his case for regular appointment pursuant to a recruitment process. It is the case of the petitioner that since the year 2006 he was working as a Meter Reader in the Kalain Electrical Sub-division and a recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 14.08.2018 for filling up various posts including the post of Sahayak. Though the petitioner claims to have qualified in the written test and was enlisted in the provisional list dated 10.02.2020, his name was excluded from further consideration.

¶22

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought the attention of this court to an order dated 23.02.2021 passed by this court in WP(C) 1351/2020. It is submitted that the numbers of petitioners had approached this court and this court vide order dated 23.02.2021 had disposed of the writ petition by directing consideration of the case as per the guideline laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi &

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Sate of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 .

¶25

Mr. B Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the APDCL submits that he would not objecting the principle if a similar direction is passed which would however be conditional on the verification of the claim of the petitioner.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and undertake an exercise regarding the claim of the petitioner of working more than 10 years against a sanction vacant post as on 10.04.2006 and in case such requirement is not fulfilled, the APDCL may consider the case by finding of a suitable economic package for the petitioner and similarly situated persons as directed in the similar case. It is expected that the aforesaid exercise may be completed within a reasonable time, preferably within six months from today.

¶27

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Matab Uddin v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matab Uddin v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Jiaul Hoque Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Harish Chandra, NO.G.2301013P, Havildargd Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ravindra Goala Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Anr.

Nripendra Kr. Deka Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Umesh Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sofikul Islam Vs the State of Assam