Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/12

¶2

GAHC010023192025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8405

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/675/2025

¶6

FIRDUSI RAHMAN CHOWDHURY DAUGHTER OF AZIZUR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO 201, ARYA APARTMENT GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, CHANDMARI BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781021.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006.

¶9

2:THE CHAIRMAN POLLUTION CONTROL BORAD ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI PIN- 781021.

¶10

3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI PIN- 781021

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. TANUZ KASHYAP,MS N MAHANTA,N GAUTAM,MR. D J DAS

¶12

Page No.# 2/12

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, SC, PCB

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 11-06-2026

¶18

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶19

The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an Order dated 29.07.2024, by which the Member Secretary of the Respondent Board had proceeded to revert the petitioner as Fixed Pay employee by cancellation of the regularization effected in her case. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as a Data Entry Operator in the Respondent Board by the Member Secretary of the Respondent Board, vide an Office Order dated 03.12.2011. The engagement of the petitioner was on Fixed Pay basis and was for a period of 89 days. It is projected that the service of the petitioner was being continuously extended and the petitioner continued to render her services as a Fixed Pay Data Entry Operator in the Board. Thereafter, the Respondent Board, on considering the services rendered by the petitioner, proceeded vide an Office Order dated 12.02.2018, to regularize her services against the post of Data Entry Operator and a scale of pay also came to be authorized to her. The petitioner in terms of

¶20

Page No.# 3/12

¶21

the decision of the said Office Order dated 12.02.2018, joined against the regular sanctioned post of Data Entry Operator on 12.02.2018 itself.

¶22

2.1. The employees of the Respondent Board are covered by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. The services of the petitioner although was regularized vide the Order dated 12.02.2018, the name of the petitioner was not included in the CPF Scheme. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Board in its 105^th Meeting of the Board. The Board on consideration of the matter, resolved to refer the matter to the Environment & Forest Department, Government of Assam, inviting comments on the issue. The authorities in the Environment & Forest Department, on examining the issue, referred to it by the Respondent Board, proceeded to respond, thereto, vide their Communication dated 04.03.2024. The Government on examination of the matter having found that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not made by following the procedure mandated, it was held that the services of the petitioner was not mandated to be regularized and had required the Respondent Board to look into the matter of irregularities in the appointment made and the officials responsible for the same and submit a report to the Department, without fail.

¶23

2.2. The said Communication, having reached the Respondent Board, came to be placed before the Board in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024. The Board on considering the issue flagged by the Government in the Environment & Forest Department, proceeded, after a detailed discussion on the same, to adopt the resolution requiring the discontinuation of the petitioner and two other similarly situated employees. The Board, however, had resolved to permit the petitioner

¶24

Page No.# 4/12

¶25

and the two other similarly situated employees to continue in the service of the Board as a Fixed Pay employee and directed for fixation of their pay at basic pay drawn at the relevant point of time, with dearness allowance permissible, which was further stipulated to undergo revision whenever the pay scale changes based on enhancement of dearness allowance and recommendation of the Pay Commission, along with Medical Allowance of Rs. 600/- per month. Basing on the said decision arrived at by the Board in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024, the Member Secretary of the Board, proceeded to issue an Order dated 29.07.2024 cancelling the regularization effected in respect of the petitioner and two other similarly situated employees. The said Order dated 29.07.2024, further permitted the petitioner to continue in service of the Board as a Fixed Pay employee along with the benefits as granted by the Board in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024.

¶26

The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present writ petition praying for the reliefs noticed herein above.

¶27

Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed herein above, has submitted that the respondent authorities having regularized the services of the petitioner which is projected to be so done with the approval of the Board, the petitioner having attained the status of a regular employee, the cancellation of her regularization could not have been made without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. He submits that in the present case, before the issuance of the Order dated 29.07.2024, the petitioner was not issued with any notice requiring her to place defence in the matter against the decision arrived at by the Board to cancel the

¶28

Page No.# 5/12

¶29

regularization of her services and to revert her as a Fixed Pay employee, as before. Mr. Choudhury has further submitted that while the petitioner and two other similarly situated employees were identified for cancellation of the regularization effected in their respective cases, the scrutiny carried out in the matter by the officials of the Board in respect of other similarly situated employees, who were also initially engaged on Fixed Pay/Contractual basis and subsequently regularized in their services by applying similar yardsticks, as applied in the case of the petitioner, was not taken to its logical conclusion. He submits that the other employees whose initial recruitment was also made in the same manner as the recruitment made in the case of the petitioner and subsequently regularized, were permitted to continue in their services as a regularized employee. He accordingly submits that the petitioner has been discriminated against.

¶30

4.1. In the above premises, Mr. Choudhury submits that the impugned Order dated 29.07.2024 would mandate an interference by this Court with the further direction to the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.07.2024 till the date of passing of this Order, along with release to the petitioner of her pay and allowances for the said period.

¶31

Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board has submitted that in terms of the Regulations holding the field, the post of Data Entry Operator is required to be so filled up by way of direct recruitment. He submits that the initial engagement of the petitioner as Fixed Pay Data Entry Operator was not preceded by any selection process. He submits that after regularization of the services of the petitioner, the issue being required to be

¶32

Page No.# 6/12

¶33

placed before the Government, in connection with the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the CPF Scheme, the Government on examining the matter, having found that the petitioner was not recruited as a Fixed Pay employee after following a due process of selection, had opined that the regularization of the services of the petitioner to be not maintainable. It is further submitted by Mr. Baruah that the said opinion came to be placed before the Board in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024. The Board after a detailed deliberation on the opinion as rendered in the matter by the Government and also noticing the background leading to the regularization of the services of the petitioner, proceeded to discontinue the services rendered by the petitioner and two other regular employees of the Board and further resolved to revert them as Fixed Pay employees, as before. He submits that the Board, considering the fact that the petitioner was working in the organization since the date of her initial engagement occasioning on 03.12.2011, proceeded to direct the fixation of the pay of the petitioner, on her reversion as a Fixed Pay employee, at the level of the basic pay drawn by her as a regularized employee along with Dearness Allowance. Mr. Baruah submits that it is only in pursuance to the decision arrived at in the matter by the Board for reversion of the petitioner as a Fixed Pay employee, that the Member Secretary of the Board had issued the Notification dated 29.07.2024. reverting the petitioner as a Fixed Pay employee. He submits that on such reversion, the petitioner was granted all the benefits as directed by the Respondent Board, in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024. Mr. Baruah submits that the reversion of the petitioner accordingly would not mandate an interference. He submits that in the event, a notice is to be issued to the petitioner in the matter, the reply of the petitioner is well known in as much as the petitioner’s initial appointment as a Fixed Pay employee in the

¶34

Page No.# 7/12

¶35

Board not being preceded by a process of selection, she would not be in a position to establish that the initial engagement was by way of a procedure known to law, the regularization of her service is to be sustained. He submits that the issuance of notice and complying with the principles of natural justice, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case would only amount to a ‘useless formality’.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

The facts noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. The petitioner’s initial engagement effected vide Order dated 12.02.2018, as a Fixed Pay Data Entry Operator in the Board is not found by this Court, to have been preceded by an process of selection initiated for the purpose by the Board. The petitioner was engaged as a Fixed Pay Data Entry Operator, without her requiring to face a selection process along with other similarly situated persons, having qualifications either similar or higher than her. However, the petitioner’s service in the Board was continued from time to time and thereafter, vide an Order dated 12.02.2018, the service of the petitioner came to be regularized in the Board against the post of Data Entry Operator. The petitioner being regularized in her services was also authorized a scale of pay along with Grade Pay and other allowances admissible under the Rules governing her service. The petitioner on acceptance of the regularization, effected in her case, joined her service as a regular employee w.e.f. 12.02.2018. As noticed hereinabove, the employees in the Respondent Board are covered by the CPF Scheme. The name of the petitioner on being included in the said Scheme and issues arising

¶38

Page No.# 8/12

¶39

thereon, the matter on being placed before the Board, came to be referred to the Government in the Environment & Forest Department for an opinion. The matter on being processed by the Environment & Forest Department, the initial engagement of the petitioner not being found to have been so effected, after following due process of selection, the Government in the Environment & Forest Department vide Communication dated 04.03.2024, intimated the Respondent Board that the services of the petitioner, herein, was found to have been engaged without following the procedure laid down in the Pollution Control Board, Assam (Employees’ Service) Regulation, 2022. The initial appointment of the petitioner being found to be effected without following the procedure laid down in the said Regulation of 2022, it was held that her service could not have been regularized. Accordingly, the Board was directed to take appropriate necessary steps and to look into the matters of irregularities in appointment made and the officials responsible for the same and to submit a report in this connection to the Government.

¶40

In pursuance to the issuance of the said Communication dated 04.03.2024, considering the contentions raised therein, the same came to be placed before the Respondent Board in its Meeting held on 28.06.2024. The Respondent Board after a detailed discussion on the issue, unanimously opined that the services of the petitioner and two others could not have been regularized. Accordingly, the Respondent Board, by also considering the services rendered by the petitioner and two others to the Board, adopted the following decision :-

¶41

i) Sri Mantu Boro, Ms Soma Hazarika and Ms Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury shall discontinue to work as Scientific Assistant-III,

¶42

Page No.# 9/12

¶43

Technical Assistant-II and Data Entry Operator respectively.

¶44

ii) Sri Mantu Boro, Ms Soma Hazarika and Ms Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury may be allowed to continue in the Board as Fixed Pay employees.

¶45

iii) The Fixed Pay/remuneration may be fixed at their present Basic Pay with the DA admissible which will undergo revision whenever pay scale changes based on enhancement of DA and recommendation of Pay Commission, along with Medical Allowance of Rs.600/- per month.

¶46

iv) The names of these three employees shall be removed from the gradation list of their respective services and the posts they have been occupying will be considered vacant and efforts will be made to fill up the post either by direct recruitment or by promotion as applicable under the Service Rule.

¶47

In terms of the said decision arrived at by the Board, the Member Secretary of the Board, vide Order dated 29.07.2024, proceeded to discontinue the services of the petitioner and two others as regular employees of the Board and reverted them as Fixed Pay employees, however, by granting to the petitioner, the benefits as extended to her on her such reversion as Fixed Pay worker by the Respondent Board.

¶48

This Court has perused the resolution adopted by the Board in its meeting held on 28.06.2024 and finds that the Board, for the purpose of reversion of the petitioner, had taken into consideration relevant materials. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not demonstrated that her initial

¶49

Page No.# 10/12

¶50

engagement as a Fixed Pay Data Entry Operator in the Board was so effected after she was selected in the recruitment exercise undertaken for the purpose by the Board officials, in accordance with the provisions of the Service Regulations holding the field. Accordingly, the petitioner’s initial entry into the service of the Board being only as an ad-hoc employee, her service admittedly was not permissible to be so regularised against a regular post of Data Entry Operator, dehors the procedure mandated in this connection in the Service Regulations holding the field. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the reversion of the petitioner as a Fixed Pay employee by the Respondent Board, in cancellation of the Order, regularizing her service is not erroneous and would not mandate interference.

¶51

Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that such reversion of the petitioner, who on being regularized in her service, was an incumbent in the regular cadre, could not have been so done without holding a proper enquiry in the matter, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to have her say in the matter.

¶52

This Court finds that the initial appointment of the petitioner not being effected by following procedure mandated in this connection under the provisions of the Service Regulations holding the field, non-adherence to the principle of natural justice, in the considered view of this Court, would not be fatal to the case of the respondents, in as much as this Court finds that in the event requirement is made by this Court for adherence of the principles of natural justice, the same would also culminate with the said result as existing

¶53

Page No.# 11/12

¶54

today and under challenge in the present writ petition. This Court in support of its said conclusion relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan , reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 . Accordingly, the contention raised in this connection by the learned Senior Counsel would not mandate acceptance from this Court. Accordingly, the reversion of the petitioner as a Fixed Pay worker stands affirmed.

¶55

Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court notices that since 2011, the petitioner has been continuously been engaged in the services of the Board. Such continuous engagement of the petitioner reveals that there is a necessity for a continuous manning of the works involved against the post of Data Entry Operator in the Board. There being a continuous need for an incumbent to man the works of the post of Data Entry Operator, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be permitted to be continued to be operated for infinity by resorting to ad-hocism. The necessity for manning the said post of Data Entry Operator accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, has to be so made through regular appointment. The Service Regulations of the Respondent Board, having also provided for the manner for effecting regular appointments against the posts covered under it, the Respondent Board is directed to take a decision as to whether the post of Data Entry Operator held by the petitioner is required to be so filled up by effective recruitment on regular basis. In the event the Board so decides to fill up the post of Data Entry Operator by adopting a procedure of selection in accordance with the Service Regulations holding the field, the post be advertised and the petitioner be also permitted to participate in the selection process. It is, however, provided that in

¶56

Page No.# 12/12

¶57

the event the petitioner, by the time when the advertisement is so published, after the decision in the matter is arrived at by the Board, become over aged, the petitioner shall submit an application before the Competent Authority of the Board for condonation of her such over age and the Competent Authority of the Board shall consider the said application sympathetically by reckoning the services rendered by the petitioner albeit in Fixed Pay capacity since 2011. This Court further permits the petitioner to submit an application before the Competent Authority of the Board making a prayer for granting weightage to her, for the services rendered by her in the Board since 2011. The Competent Authority on receipt of such Representation from the petitioner, shall also consider the same sympathetically and arrive at a decision, thereon, after considering the long service rendered by the petitioner in the Board.

¶58

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury v. the State of Assam and 2 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Prasad Laskar and 43 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Domon Swargiary and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jeanraipou Kabui Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dipanker Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jintu Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Ors.