Disposed

Rajesh Deb v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2026WP(C)/7493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment or regularization in APDCL following the petitioner father's death in 2006, after an earlier court-directed representation was rejected. The court declined the compassionate appointment request but directed APDCL to ensure the petitioner, serving as a contractual employee, receives all benefits afforded to similar contractual employees.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without granting compassionate appointment/regularization; respondents to ensure petitioner receives full contractual-employee benefits and redress any service grievances raised.

Rajesh Deb Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010288072023

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7493/2023

¶6

RAJESH DEB

¶7

S/O LT RATAN CHANDRA DEB R/O LINK ROAD SUBASH NAGAR WARD NO. 15 DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶10

REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM POWER AND ELECTRICITY DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶11

2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)

¶12

APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN 2ND FLOOR PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI 1

¶13

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D)

¶14

APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN 2ND FLOOR PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI 1

¶15

4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI 1

¶17

5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶18

CACHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL CAZ MEHERPUR SILCHAR 5

¶19

6:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶20

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL CAR KARIMGANJ PIN 788710

¶21

7:THE SENIOR MANAGER

¶22

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL CAR KARIMGANJ PIN 788710

¶23

8:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶24

BADARPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL (CAR) BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ PIN 78880

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H I CHOUDHURY, G UDDIN,MR. M SARMA,MR REZABUL HOQUE

¶26

Page No.# 2/3

¶27

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,

¶28

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶29

ORDER

¶30

04.02.2026

¶31

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.

¶32

The prayers made in the present writ petition are for directions to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in any Gr-III or Gr-IV posts by relating such compassion to the demise of the father of the petitioner in year 2006.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when no action had been taken to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2020 and by an order dated 29.11.2022 passed in WP(C)/4796/2020, this Court had directed the respondents to take into consideration the case of the petitioner and to pass necessary order thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the respondent authorities, which order is now under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has also made his submissions with regard to the long lapse of time which has passed between the death of the father of the petitioner and the present litigation and has submitted that in view of the settled position in law as of today, the case of the petitioner does not deserve a consideration on the basis of compassion only.

¶34

Page No.# 3/3

¶35

After some deliberation in the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is presently serving as a contractual employee under the APDCL authorities itself and he is under instructions that the petitioner is perhaps not being afforded all the benefits as are being afforded to other employees, who are situated similarly.

¶36

Although, Mr. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has controverted the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that even in the event that the petitioner’s case for a regular appointment or regularization cannot be considered on the ground of compassion, since he is serving as a contractual employee, the APDCL as a role model employer is required to ensure that he is given all the benefits as are being given to other employees, who are serving the organization in contractual basis.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the APDCL in all fairness would ensure the same and any defect if pointed out by the petitioner in his benefits shall be appropriately addressed by the concerned authorities.

¶38

In view of the above, the prayers made in this writ petition for appointment/regularization within the APDCL itself on the ground of compassion which cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the respondent authorities would ensure redressal of grievances of the present services of the petitioner, if any grievances are raised.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Rajesh Deb v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Deb v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Sirazul Haque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jadav Borah and 3 Ors. Vs Narayan Konwar and 8 Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Iocl and 27 Ors, Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Accountant General a and E Vs Sri Rupam Phukan

M/S Bikash Traders Vs Sri Biswadeep Das and Ors.

No. 1 Dhemagarh L.P School and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.