Hiralal Ramchiary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026WP(C)/4274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging termination as an Assistant Teacher when the petitioner was regularized as a Grade-IV employee. The Court found the 1999 regularization legally flawed. It ordered verification and refrained from intervening in the termination directly. relief: direction for verification of eligibility and entitlement to arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed Director of Education to verify eligibility regarding 1999 regularization, grant hearing, and issue order on entitlement to arrears within 60 days.

Hiralal Ramchiary Vs the Bodoland… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010133352021

2026:GAU-AS:13613

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4274/2021

¶6

HIRALAL RAMCHIARY

¶7

S/O LATE HEMANTA RAMCHIARY, VILL-BAGULMARI, P.O.-BAGULMARI, P.S.-BAGULMARI, DIST-BAKSA, ASSAM (WORKING AS GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE OF BAGULMARI M.E. SCHOOL)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BODOFA NAGAR, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BTC BODOFA NWGWAR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR TOWN DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSA MUSHALPUR ASSAM

¶13

5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSA MUSHALPUR ASSA

¶14

Page No.# 2/13

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC,

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 14.09.2026

¶20

Heard Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B Borah, Learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents.

¶21

The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has assailed an order dated 23.06.2009, issued towards terminating his services and has further prayed for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to release to him his salaries in arrears, w.e.f September 2009.

¶22

The facts in brief, requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the present Writ Petition, is noticed as under.

¶23

3.1 The Petitioner, herein, vide an order dated 22.11.1999, was regularized as a Chowkidar in Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School. Thereafter, a General Provident Fund (GPF) account, in favour of the Petitioner, was opened and, therein, the date of joining of Government Service by the Petitioner was denoted as 22.11.1999. As

¶24

the Petitioner was continuing in his services, the Director of

¶25

Page No.# 3/13

¶26

Education, BTC, vide an order dated 19.01.2009, proceeded to terminate the services of the Petitioner by holding that his appointment was doubtful. However, the Petitioner was not terminated from his services as a Grade-IV employee but was so terminated as an Assistant Teacher. It is projected by the Petitioner that termination effected, in respect of Teachers working in Schools within the territorial jurisdiction of the BTC, whose services were terminated on grounds similar to the one raised in respect of the Petitioner, were reinstated in their respective services by the Respondents, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 06.02.2015 in WA No. 182/2013.

¶27

3.2 The Petitioner projects that he had earlier approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 4472/2015 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 10.08.2015, requiring the BTC authorities to examine and verify the claim of the Petitioner, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in WA No. 182/2013, as well as the policy decision, as noticed, therein.

¶28

3.3 The Petitioner has further projected that the Respondent authorities, although, had initiated a process for consideration of the case of the Petitioner, no final decision having been arrived at in the

¶29

Page No.# 4/13

¶30

matter, he has instituted the present Writ Petition, praying for the reliefs noticed, hereinabove.

¶31

Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that it is an admitted position that the Petitioner was regularized in his services, as a Grade-IV employee and accordingly, he could not have been terminated from his services by projecting that he was working as an Assistant Teacher. Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner, although was terminated from his services, vide an order dated 19.01.2009, the Petitioner has continued to render his services till date.

¶32

Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the communication dated 15.03.2017, has submitted that in pursuance to the process of verification, initiated by the Respondent authorities, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in WP© No. 4472/2015, it was brought on record that the Petitioner’s name, was not included in the list of 2272 (Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Two) incumbents, whose appointments were found to be irregular and/or illegal. It was further projected that the Petitioner was appointed against a valid sanctioned post and had received his salaries till June 2006. Accordingly, Ms. K Devi, Learned

¶33

Page No.# 5/13

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner, having been regularized in his services by the authorities as a Grade-IV employee, against a valid sanctioned post and the Petitioner not being identified to be an irregular and/or illegal appointee, the termination of his services, was not permissible. She submits that the services of the Petitioner, as a Grade-IV employee, has not been terminated till date and the termination, as effected in his case, was as an Assistant Teacher. However, the Respondent authorities have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the Petitioner was subsequently appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

¶35

Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has placed on record the Service Book of the Petitioner to project that the services of the Petitioner was regularized as a Grade-IV employee in Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School and was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, further submits that the School, wherein, the Petitioner was appointed, i.e. Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School, was subsequently amalgamated with Bagulamari High School and even after such amalgamation, the Petitioner continued to render his services, in the Bagulamari High School.

¶36

In the above premises, Ms. K Devi, Learned Counsel for

¶37

Page No.# 6/13

¶38

the Petitioner submits that the order dated 19.01.2009, would mandate an interference from this Court, along with the directions upon the Respondent authorities to release to the Petitioner, his salaries in arrears, w.e.f. September 2009.

¶39

Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents has submitted that although no affidavit has been filed by the Respondents represented by her in the matter, she would place reliance on the instructions received by her from the Respondents. Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents, fairly submits that in terms of the instructions received by her, the Petitioner is still continuing in his services in Bagulamari High School. She further submits that the Petitioner was terminated from his services by construing him to be an Assistant Teacher, but he was appointed/regularized as a Chowkidar (Grade-IV). Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, however, submits that the initial appointment of the Petitioner, not being in accordance with the rules holding the field, the termination of the Petitioner, albeit as an Assistant Teacher, be deemed to be a typographical error and the order dated 19.01.2009, has to be construed to be an order issued towards the terminating the services of the Petitioner as a Chowkidar

¶40

Page No.# 7/13

¶41

(Grade-IV employee).

¶42

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and

¶43

perused the materials available on record.

¶44

At the outset, this Court would notice that the present Writ Petition was filed in the year 2021. From the order sheet of the present Writ Petition, this Court also finds that the BTC authorities were given repeated opportunities to file their affidavit in the matter. However, the said opportunities are not found to have been utilized and till date, no affidavit has been filed in the matter. Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, has, however, furnished the instructions received by her in the matter from the Respondents and the same is being considered by this Court, for adjudicating the issue arising in the present Writ Petition.

¶45

As noticed, hereinabove, the Petitioner, herein, was, vide an order dated 22.11.1999, regularized in his services against a vacant post of Chowkidar in Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School. On regularization of the services of the Petitioner, a GPF account was also opened in favour of the Petitioner. From the date-of-birth of the Petitioner, as recorded in the said communication dated 06.04.2006, as well as in his Service Book, it is found that his date-of-birth is recorded as “02.09.1981”. The Petitioner, accordingly, had attained

¶46

Page No.# 8/13

¶47

the age of majority only on “01.09.1999”. The date when the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Chowkidar of the Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School, is not disclosed in the present Writ Petition. Further, from the materials brought on record, this Court finds that as of “01.09.1999”, when the Petitioner had attained the age of majority, Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School was already a provincialised School. It is a settled position of law that after provincialization of a School, the Managing Committee is not empowered to effect any appointment in a provincialized School. Accordingly, the regularization of the services of the Petitioner, vide the order dated 22.11.1999, is found by this Court to have been issued in excess of the powers vested in a District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO).

¶48

The issue arising in the present Writ Petition having emanated from the order dated 22.11.1999, the same is extracted hereinbelow :

¶49

“GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶50

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER :: NALBARI

¶51

ORDER

¶52

In percuance of the Govt. post sanctioning order Memo. No. EPG-567/91/108 dated 16.11.91 the Service of Sri Hiralal Ramchiary Read up to Class X working Chowkidar of Bagulamari Anchalik M.E. School appointed by the Managing Committee of the School is hereby regularized with immediate effect in the scale of pay of rs. 2450/to 3670/- P.M. plus other allowances as admissible under Rules.

¶53

Page No.# 9/13

¶54

The expenditure will be debatable under the Head of accounts" 2202-Gen 1- Ed N-1-

¶55

11 Other state plan and Non-Plan Schemes-01-Ele-Edn-101 (c) Govt. Middle Schools - 1 Salaries Plan" during the year 1998-99. Sd/- A Choudhuary District Ele. Edn. Officer Nalbari

¶56

Momo No. DEEO/NAL/Apptt/4th Grade/98/2708-15 Date-22/11/99”

¶57

A perusal of the said order would go to reveal that the

¶58

Petitioner was projected to be working as a Chowkidar of Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School, on being appointed by the Managing Committee of the said School and accordingly, his services were regularized with the scale of pay authorized to a Grade-IV post. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition has not brought on record any material to demonstrate as to when he was appointed in the said School by its Managing Committee and as to whether on the date of his such appointment, the School was a provincialized School, or not. Accordingly, it is to be held that vide the order dated 22.11.1999, the Petitioner was appointed against a Grade-IV post in the guise of his services being regularized. There being no order of appointment issued towards appointing the Petitioner as a Grade-IV employee in Bagulamari M.E School being brought on record, it can be safely presumed that the Petitioner had entered his service only in pursuance to the order dated 22.11.1999, which is clearly impermissible.

¶59

Page No.# 10/13

¶60

Having noticed the said position, this Court would now examine the order dated 19.01.2009, issued by the Director of Education, BTC, terminating the services of the Petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 19.01.2009, goes to reveal that the services of the Petitioner was terminated as an Assistant Teacher, on the ground that he had not fulfilled the pre-recruitment criterias, including that of his selection by a Selection Committee and his appointment, being effected with the approval of the then State Level empowered Committee. This Court finds that the order dated 19.01.2009, had terminated the services of the Petitioner by construing him to be an Assistant Teacher. However, there is no material produced before this Court to reveal that after the services of the Petitioner was regularized on 22.11.1999, he was again appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

¶61

Having drawn the said conclusions, considering that the prayer made in the present Writ Petition by the Petitioner is for authorizing to him, his arrear salaries, w.e.f September 2009, this Court, on appreciating the manner in which he was accommodated against a vacant post, vide order dated 22.11.1999, as well as considering the attending facts and circumstances, is not in a position to arrive at a conclusion that the Petitioner was appointed as a Grade-

¶62

Page No.# 11/13

¶63

IV employee, vide the order dated 22.11.1999, by following a due

¶64

process, as mandated under law.

¶65

As noticed, hereinabove, the Petitioner could not have been appointed by the Managing Committee of the said School before he had attained the age of majority and also after the School, wherein, he was so appointed was provincialized.

¶66

In view of the above position emanating in the matter, this Court refrains from passing any directions, interfering with the order dated 19.01.2009 and/or directing the Respondents, for authorizing to the Petitioner, his arrear salaries.

¶67

Considering the disputed questions coming on record, as well as the manner in which the Petitioner was regularized in his services, vide the order dated 22.11.1999, this Court directs the Director of Education, BTC, to carry out a process of verification with regard to the eligibility of the Petitioner to have his services regularized, as of 22.11.1999 and thereafter, to take a decision, with regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner for his arrear salaries.

¶68

In the event, the Director of Education, BTC, on carrying out the process of verification, is of the considered view that the Petitioner was regularized, vide the order dated 22.11.1999 by following a procedure known to Law, the termination of the services

¶69

Page No.# 12/13

¶70

of the Petitioner would be of no consequence and the Director would deem that such termination in his case had never occasioned and proceed to release to the Petitioner, his salaries in arrears, in accordance with law. However, in the event it is found that the regularization of the services of the Petitioner, effected, vide the order dated 22.11.1999, was not so effected by following the due procedure mandated under law, the Petitioner would not be entitled to any further salaries after being terminated from his services and the order dated 19.01.2009, would be deemed to be an order terminating his services as a Grade-IV employee and not as an Assistant Teacher.

¶71

To facilitate the process of verification, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, this Court directs the Petitioner to a submit representation within a period of 15 (Fifteen) days from today, before the Director of Education, BTC, and therein, set-out all the requisite relevant particulars, with regard to his service, including the order issued towards appointing him as a Grade-IV employee by the Managing Committee of Bagulamari Anchalik M.E School. The Director of Education, BTC, thereafter, shall carry out the verification process and also grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, herein. The Director of Education, BTC, on conclusion of the hearing, shall, by reckoning of the directions passed, hereinabove, issue a

¶72

Page No.# 13/13

¶73

speaking order in the matter, within a period of 60 (Sixty) days from

¶74

the date of receipt of the representation, along with the certified copy

¶75

of the present order from the Petitioner.

¶76

With the above observations and directions, the present

¶77

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶78

JUDGE

¶79

Comparing Assistant

Hiralal Ramchiary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Ramchiary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases