Bijoya Daulagupu Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010018082022

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/837/2022

¶6

BIJOYA DAULAGAPU

¶7

W/O- LATE BABULAL BARMAN, R/O- DONGJEN RAZI VILLAGE, P.SUMRANGSO, DIST- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PI-788931

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶10

THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATU-781006

¶11

2:SECRETARY

¶12

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036

¶13

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036

¶14

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING UMRANGSO DIVISION UMRANGSO ASSAM

¶15

5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA

¶16

Page No.# 2/8

¶17

GUWAHATI-29

¶18

6:THE COMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 7:THE STATE OF OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-6 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 9:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SARKAR, MR N M DEKA,MR P K BASU

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, MR. S K MEDHI (r-5),SC, DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL,SC, FINANCE,SC, AG (A AND E)

¶21

Linked Case : WP(C)/5870/2024

¶22

BIJOYA DAULAGUPU W/O- LATE BABULAL BARMAN RESIDENT OF - DONGJEN RAZI VILLAGE POLICE STATION- UMRANGSO

¶23

Page No.# 3/8

¶24

DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788931.

¶25

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 36. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING) ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING) UMRANGSO DIVISION UMRANGSO ASSAM. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DHAC. 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29. -----------Advocate for : MR. N SARKAR Advocate for : SC P H E appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶26

Page No.# 4/8

¶27

Linked Case : WP(C)/6180/2024

¶28

SADHAN HOJAI C/O- LATE RAIJOMONI HOJAI R/O- VTC UMRANGSO LAKE SIDE P.S. UMRANGSO SUB. DIV.- HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788931. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE) DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. HENGRABARI ASSAM GHY-781036. 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (T) DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG ASSAM PIN- 788819. 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING HAFLONG DIMA HASAO PIN- 788819.

¶29

Page No.# 5/8

¶30

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UMRANGSO DIVISION UMRANGSO DIMA HASAO ASSAM PIN- 788931. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GHY-781006. 8:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-781029. 9:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HILLS AREA DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006. 10:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006. -----------Advocate for : MR. N SARKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS

¶31

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶32

ORDER

¶33

12.02.2026

¶34

Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General in WP(C) No. 5870/2024; Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General in WP(C) No.6180/2024;

¶35

Page No.# 6/8

¶36

Mr. A. Chakrabarty, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.; Ms. P. Seyie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.M. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.837/2022; and for the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in WP(C) No.6180/2024; and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

¶37

2. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5870/2024 and WP(C) No.837/2022 claims to the wife of Late Babulal Barman who had been initially engaged as a Khalasi on 28.11.1987. Subsequently, he was upgraded from Work Charged Section Assistant (in short S.A.) in the Office of the Executive Engineer (PHE) Umrangso Division w.e.f. 06.05.1999 and had died on 27.05.2019. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 6180/2024 initially appointed as a Work Charged Khalasi on 23.06.1982 in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering (PHE), Umrangso Division, Umrangso in Dima Hasao, Haflong vide Memo No.PHEE/Estt-2/82-83/1298-303, dated 23.06.1982. The petitioner accordingly joined in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (PHE) Umrangso SubDivision Department, Umrangso on 01.07.1982.

¶38

3. In the year 2005, the Government had accorded sanction for the creation of a specified number of posts in order to regularize the services of those Work Charge workers who were engaged prior to the cutoff date of 01/04/1993. Accordingly, a list of eligible workers was prepared and forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General. The name of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6180/2024 appeared at Sl. No. 21 of the said list, confirming that his services were duly regularized.

¶39

Page No.# 7/8

¶40

4. However, the respondent authorities subsequently issued an impugned notification dated 10.02.2026, cancelling the regularization of the petitioners services. The said cancellation of regularization was never communicated to the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶41

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cancellation was based on an erroneous assumption. He submits that since the petitioner’s husband in WP(C) No. 5870/2024 and WP(C) No.837/2022 and petitioner in WP(C) No.6180/2024 have been in continuous service since their initial date of appointment, they clearly falls within the ambit of the regularization policy. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and ignores the petitioner’s total length of service.

¶42

6. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contentions raised by the petitioners. If that is the case, there can be no doubt that the petitioners initial appointment predates the cutoff of 01/04/1993. Consequently, their services were correctly regularized in the first instance.

¶43

7. The mere fact that the cancellation of their regularization based only on the later date is, on the face of the record factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

¶44

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference in this case to the judgment of the this Court in Bijon Hapila vs. The State of Assam and 7 Ors in WP(C) No.1231/2022 & in Haya Nampui vs. The State of Assam and 6 Ors in WP(C) No.5053/2024.

¶45

Page No.# 8/8

¶46

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available as well as the judgments pressed into service, whereby the impugned circulars were set aside and however, those were only set aside for the respective petitioners therefore, this Court is in agreement with conclusions arrived at by the Co-ordinate Benches accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2006 stands set aside. The respondents are directed to release the arrears as also the pension benefits by putting a proper proposal along with all necessary documents before the Accountant General. Upon receipt of the proposal the Accountant General will endeavour to release the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

10. If any regularization order is necessary to be passed then the same shall also be passed by the respondent authorities.

¶48

11. In terms of the above these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Bijoya Daulagupu v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoya Daulagupu v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hansbir Betala Vs the Union of India

Raju Shil Vs the Union of India

Dr. Bhaben Choudhury Vs a. L. Choudhury and Anr.

Gautam Talukdar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Bijoya Daulagapu Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smt. Kajir Enghipi Vs the North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd. and 4 Ors.