Dismissed¶29

Obedul Hoque v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2026WP(C)/7308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seasonal DDT Spray Worker; non-inclusion in list; communication dated 09.04.2024; Joint Director of Health Services(M)-cum-SPO NVBDCP Assam; DDT spraying work 1986–2005; Malaria Department; representation dated 30.05.2024 Annexure-7; no deprivation of right; writ petition dismissed; liberty if similarly situated persons granted benefits; State of Assam Health and F.W. Department; Director of Health Services; District Malaria Officer Darrang; Gauhati High Court; Devashis Baruah; WP(C)/7308/2025; 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty given to the petitioner to pursue the claim if similarly situated persons are granted benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024. ¶29

Obedul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty given to the petitioner to pursue the claim if similarly situated persons are granted benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's name ought to have been included in the list of Seasonal DDT Spray Worker pursuant to the communication dated 09.04.2024 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services(M)-cum-SPO, NVBDCP, Assam, given his claim of having worked 20 years (1986–2005) in DDT Spraying Work under the Malaria Department. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

This Court was not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage, taking into account that there is no deprivation of the petitioner's right and further nothing could be shown in support of the petitioner's claim.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶29

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek the same relief in the circumstance when similarly situated persons like the petitioner are granted the benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), WP(C)/7308/2025, order dated 02.02.2026: A petitioner claiming to have worked 20 years (1986–2005) in DDT Spraying Work under the Malaria Department, as stated in his representation dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure-7), challenged the non-inclusion of his name in the list of Seasonal DDT Spray Worker pursuant to the communication dated 09.04.2024 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services(M)-cum-SPO, NVBDCP, Assam. On enquiry, counsel for the petitioner submitted that persons whose names were sent were to be engaged in other work but that no benefit had been granted to them till date. Holding that there was no deprivation of the petitioner's right and that nothing was shown in support of his claim, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage and dismissed it, reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter if similarly situated persons are granted benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010278992025

2026:GAU-AS:1295

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7308/2025

¶6

OBEDUL HOQUE S/O- LATE WAHIDUR RAHMAN, R/O-VILL- GANGAPUKHURI,P.O.SANTIPUKHURIP.S.- SIPAJHARDIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784144

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THEBRGOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH ANDBRF.W. DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

¶10

ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (M) CUM SPO NV BDCP ASSAM CHRISTIANBASTI GUWAHATI 781005

¶11

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

¶12

DARRANG P.O. MANGALDOI P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125

¶13

5:DIST. MALARIA OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

DARRANG MANGALDOI P.O. MANGALDOI P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 6:S.D.M. AND H.O. KHOIRABARI BPHC UDALGURI BTAD P.O. KHOIRABARI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM PIN 78452

¶16

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Hussain

¶17

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. D Upamanyu, Standing Counsel Health and Family Welfare Deptt.

¶18

B E F O R E

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

02.02.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. M Hossain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D Upamanyu, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Assam.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s name was not included in the list of Seasonal DDT Spray Worker by the Joint Director of Health Services when the communication was issued by the Joint Director of Health Services(M)-cum-SPO, NVBDCP, Assam, dated 09.04.2024 and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

The materials on record and, more particularly, the representation dated 30.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner enclosed as Annexure-7 clearly show that the petitioner claimed that he had worked for 20 years from 1986 to 2005 in DDT Spraying Work under the Malaria Department and, therefore, his name should also have been sent.

¶26

This Court, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to what benefit the petitioner would get if his name is forwarded in terms with the communication dated 09.04.2024 and as such, vide an order dated 21.01.2026 granted time to the petitioner to obtain instruction(s).

¶27

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per instructions received from the petitioner those persons whose names would be sent they would be engaged in some other work. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that however no benefit till date has been granted to those persons whose names have been sent.

¶28

Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage, taking into account that there is no deprivation of the petitioner’s right and further nothing could also be shown in support of the petitioner’s claim.

¶29

The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner in the circumstance when similarly situated persons like the petitioner are granted the benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Obedul Hoque v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obedul Hoque 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayanta Bora and 38 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Biren Chandra Bora and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dolee Bhuyan Vs the Assam State Warehousing Corporation and 2 Ors.

Sambaru Kumar Das Vs MD Alimuddin Ahmed

Asha Rani Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Ami Deb and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.