Dismissed¶¶35

Amiya Kumar Roy v. the Chairman and Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Oct 2025WP(C)/4247/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition without liberty bars fresh Article 226 petition; Article 226 remedy deemed abandoned; rejection of representation confers no fresh cause of action; delay and laches; graduate scale of pay claim; Assistant Teacher B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School; APGCL; Amiya Kumar Roy; Gauhati High Court; W.P.(C)/4247/2025; dismissed 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Where a petitioner withdraws a writ petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without permission to institute a fresh petition, the remedy under Article 226 is deemed abandoned in respect of that cause of action, and it is not open to him to file a fresh petition under the same Article. ¶¶32

Amiya Kumar Roy Vs the Chairman and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition is entertainable, given that the petitioner had earlier withdrawn W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022 without liberty to approach the Court again, and the rejection of his subsequent representation by Order dated 03.08.2022 conferred no fresh cause of action.

¶¶31

Court's answer

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Since the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without any liberty to approach the Court again, the rejection of the petitioner's representation by Order dated 03.08.2022 did not confer any fresh cause of action to approach the Court again.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

On the above discussion, the writ petition is not entertainable and is therefore dismissed, with no costs.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.) — W.P.(C)/4247/2025, Amiya Kumar Roy v. The Chairman & Ors. (APGCL), Order dated 15.10.2025. The petitioner, appointed Assistant Teacher of B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School in 1987 after participating in the 1987 selection for the B.T.P.S. High School Assistant Teacher post, claimed the graduate scale of pay. His earlier writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022, was held hit by delay and laches and was dismissed on withdrawal by Order dated 21.07.2022, with liberty only to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director, APGCL (respondent no. 2) and without liberty to approach the Court again. The fresh representation (submitted 22.07.2022) was rejected by Order dated 03.08.2022. The present writ petition, filed on 29.07.2025, was held not entertainable: where a petitioner withdraws an Article 226 petition without permission to institute a fresh petition, the Article 226 remedy is deemed abandoned for that cause of action, and rejection of the subsequently-filed representation confers no fresh cause of action. Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010167502025

2025:GAU-AS:13833

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4247/2025

¶6

AMIYA KUMAR ROY

¶7

S/O LT RUP NATH ROY R/O VILL DAHALAPARA PO AND PS KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR BTAS ASSAM PIN 783370

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE CHAIRMAN AND ORS

¶10

ASEB/APGCL ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶11

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶13

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

¶14

ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶15

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR)

¶16

APGCL ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶17

5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) APGCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 78100

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, MR A N AHMED

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. H. R . DAS, SC, APGCL

¶20

Page No.# 2/4

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶22

ORDER

¶23

15.10.2025

¶24

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sahiinii, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power General Corporation Limited [APGCL] for all the respondents.

¶25

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had taken part in a selection process for filling up a vacant post of Assistant Teacher of Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station [B.T.P.S] High School in the year 1987. The petitioner has projected that he was, however, asked by the respondent authorities as to whether he would accept the post of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary School of B.T.P.S., if he would not appointed for the post for which he had been interviewed for on 30.05.1987. Subsequent to the above facts, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher of B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School in 1987.

¶26

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022 projecting that the petitioner should be given the graduate scale of pay and not the pay scale of Assistant Teacher of B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School as he had taken part in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher of High School and not a Lower Primary School. It was submitted before the Court that the petitioner submitted a representation in June, 1989 with regard to his grievance and the same was not attended to. It was further projected that the petitioner was due to retire in few months and accordingly, a direction should be issued to the respondents to grant graduate scale of pay to the petitioner.

¶27

When the petitioner approached this Court earlier, it was found that the petitioner subsequent to his representation submitted in June, 1989, approached the Court after more than three decades and the Court was of the view that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches. After the Court recorded that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches, the

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a representation again before the Managing Director, APGCL [the respondent no. 2]. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed by this Court while dismissing the writ petition on withdrawal by an Order dated 21.07.2022. Liberty was given to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent no. 2 and it was observed that in the event the petitioner would file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the same within a reasonable period. It was on 22.07.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 renewing his prayer for grant of graduate scale of pay. The respondent no. 2 by an Order dated 03.08.2022 rejected the prayer made in the representation holding that there was no reasonable and valid ground.

¶30

It was after rejection of the representation on 03.08.2022, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition on 29.07.2025, that is, after about three years from the date of such rejection.

¶31

What is also noticeable from the facts is that when this Court on 21.07.2022 had already observed that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022 had suffered from delay and laches, the petitioner then withdrew the writ petition, without any liberty to approach this Court again. The petitioner only sought a liberty to file a fresh representation to renew his prayer for graduate scale of pay. When the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without any liberty to approach again this Court, the rejection of the representation by the Order dated 03.08.2022 would not confer any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court again.

¶32

Where a petitioner withdraws a petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without permission to institute a fresh petition, remedy under Article 226 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied in the writ petition and it would not be open to him to file a fresh petition in the High Court under the same Article.

¶33

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is found be not entertainable and

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Amiya Kumar Roy v. the Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amiya Kumar Roy v. the Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhrubajyoti Deb Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sashi Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Arjun Thapa Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sultan Hussain Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Prabhat Kumar Kalita Vs Smt Keerthi Jalli

Suraj Bora Vs Smt. Keerthi Jalli