Disposed

Bipul Chandra Dey v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Apr 2022WP(C)/707/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Michael Zothankuma disposed of a writ petition filed by a peon seeking regularisation or regular staffing. Relying on Secretary, Karnataka v. Umadevi, regularisation was denied. The Court directed the State to fill the vacant post within four months, permit the petitioner to participate in selection with age relaxation and weightage for past service.

What did the court decide?

Directed to fill the vacant peon post within four months; petitioner allowed to participate in selection with age relaxation and weightage for past service.

Bipul Chandra Dey Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010022192018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/707/2018

¶5

BIPUL CHANDRA DEY S/OLT. HARMOHAN CHANDRA DEY R/O VILL- LAKHIPUT (PART-III), P.O. HILARA DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

¶10

ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI.

¶11

3:DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

¶12

DIST. CACHAR ASSAM

¶13

4:CHILD DEVLEOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER

¶14

KALAIN ICDS PROJECT

¶15

DIST. CACHAR ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRABORTY

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 06.04.2022

¶22

Heard Ms. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the State respondents.

¶23

The petitioner is serving as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Kalain ICDS Project in the Cachar District since the year 2002 on an honorary basis and is being given Rs. 500/- per month by the respondent authorities.

¶24

The petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to be issued for consideration of his case for regularisation or in the alternative to direct the respondents to conduct the selection process for filling up the vacant post of Peon in the Office of the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project, Cachar on regular basis.

¶25

The prayer of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be granted in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SSC 1.

¶26

On the other hand a perusal of the pleadings shows that the petitioner has been working in the Office of the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project, Cachar since 2002.

¶27

The letter no. CDPO (KLN)EST/Pt/ 2005-06 dated 19.06.2012 and the letter no. CDPO /KLN/Est/Pt-1/2012-2013/144 dated 29.03.2018 issued by the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project, Cachar are reproduced below:

¶28

19.06.2012

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

“ With reference to the subject cited above, a post of Office Peon is lying vacant since the transfer of Md. Joynul Islam Barbhuiya, office peon vide transfer order No. 34/2003/24 Dated 12^th July/2006 and since then Shri Bipul Ch. Dey has been rendering service without any remuneration, on the verbal order of then CDPO of Kalain ICDS Project.

¶31

So, considering the humanitarian ground on the prolonged voluntary service, Shri Bipul Ch. Dey, may be considered for the post of said office peon of Kalain ICDS Project.”

¶32

29.03.2018

¶33

“ With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that Sri Bipul Ch. Dey as he has been serving Grade-Iv post since 2002 as honorary under Kalain ICDS project. As per record it is found that a recruitment process was held in the year 2005 wherein he was also a candidate but one Joynal Ahmed Barbhuiyan was selected and within 3 months of his appointment he was transferred to some other posted and Sri Bipul Ch. Dey’s service is being utilised in the said office till date/

¶34

The petitioner Sri Bipul Ch. Dey filed several representation before the authorities but nothing was done. As per record it is observed that his continuing service in the office of CDPO, Kalain is certified by the CDPO concerned. It is also found his separate attendance register which was certified by concerned CDPO since 2011 to till date.

¶35

This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action. ”

¶36

The above letters clearly goes to show that the service of the petitioner have been utilised against the substantive vacancy, which has not been filled up till date on a regular basis. The manner in which the service of the petitioner has been utilised by paying him a pittance is patently unfair and unreasonably.

¶37

In view of the above reasons and the fact that the respondents needs the service of a peon, the State respondents should fill up the vacant post in which the petitioner is working on a regular basis, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

Page No.# 4/4

¶39

At the time of filling up the vacant post, on regular basis, the petitioner should be allowed to take part in the selection process. If the petitioner is found to be over age, there should be relaxation of the over age by the respondent authorities. The State respondents should also consider giving weightage to the past service of the petitioner.

¶40

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Bipul Chandra Dey v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipul Chandra Dey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naznin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prabhati Roy and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Akher Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nabbesh Ali Ahmed Vs Subhash Chandra Das and 2 Ors. (a)

Abdul Matlib Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Shyamanta Barman and 34 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.