Disposed

Rabi Chandra Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2023WP(C)/2824/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, retired after 35 years of service, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to Deputy Ranger, citing a seniority dispute. The court dismissed it as no effective relief could be granted due to retirement and lack of clear promotion criteria.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands closed; no effective relief granted due to retirement and lack of cause of action.

Rabi Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010107342023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2824/2023

¶5

RABI CHANDRA DAS S/O- LATE RUDRA MOHAN DAS , FORESTER I (SINCE RETIRED), R/O- VILLAGE MANIPUR (DEWCHUA), P.O AND P.S- RANIGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783345

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE

¶10

ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781037.

¶11

3:BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

¶12

REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CHD KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶13

4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST WESTERN ASSAM CIRCLE KOKRAJHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

PIN-783370 ASSAM

¶16

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KACHUGAON DIVISION

¶17

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF FOREST GOSSAIGAON PIN-783360 ASSAM

¶18

6:SUBHAS MUSHAHARY DEPUTY RANGER (RETD)

¶19

OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

¶20

PARBATJHARA DIVISION

¶21

SUPARIGHAT BTC PIN-78334

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶24

ORDER

¶25

01.09.2023

¶26

Heard Shri S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Forest Department is represented by Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel. The BTC is represented by Shri B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court with regard to the issue of his promotion. The petitioner who was serving as a Forester-I has claimed that he ought to have been considered and promoted to the next higher post of Deputy Ranger inasmuch as the private respondent no. 6 who has been stated to be junior to him

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

was promoted on 17.01.2020. It is submitted that though the petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Guard, after long 35 years of service, he was promoted to Forester-II and thereafter, to Forester-I.

¶30

The petitioner accordingly prays for a direction for consideration of his case for promotion.

¶31

Per contra, Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has submitted that it is an admitted case that the petitioner had retired from the service as Forester-I on 31.03.2021. He has also referred to the earlier order of this Court dated 28.08.2023 wherein it has been recorded regarding the inordinate delay in approaching the Court and also the absence of any pleadings with regard to the criteria for promotion. He accordingly contends that only by citing the instance of the respondent no. 6 by claiming that the petitioner is senior to him, that may not be the sole basis for which this writ petition can be entertained.

¶32

The learned standing counsel has also submitted that not only the petitioner has retired in the meantime, even the respondent no. 6 has also retired and therefore, there is no live cause of action to be adjudicated.

¶33

Shri B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC has also taken a similar stand like that of Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.

¶34

This Court has noticed that on the last occasion i.e., 28.08.2023 after recording the aforesaid submissions, Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to obtain instructions. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel however submits that no instructions could be given to him with regard to the criteria of promotion.

¶35

This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of Equity wherein the conduct of the parties are of paramount importance. The petitioner had retired more than two years back and has filed this writ petition claiming retrospective promotion by citing an example of respondent no. 6 by claiming

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

that he is junior to the said respondent no. 6. However, even the criteria for promotion to the post of Forester-I has not been stated in the writ petition.

¶38

It is also not in dispute that both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 have retired from service.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no effective relief can be granted in this writ petition.

¶40

In view of the above, the writ petition stands closed.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Rabi Chandra Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabi Chandra Das v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Bibhuti Bhusan Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Pankaj Rajbongshi and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sourav Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rehena Begum Vs the Union of India

Subhas Chandra (No. 05038624 Ct/Gd) Vs Rashmi Shukla and Anr.

Abdul Baki Sheikh Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.