Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 739 (GAU)

MD. ABDUL WADUD SHAH v. STATE OF ASSAM

2015-06-12

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr S Biswas, counsel for the petitioner and Mr M Khataniar, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department wherein the petitioner’s request to be included in the list of casual workers who are to be paid fixed monthly wages of Rs. 4500/- per month, has been rejected. The petitioner who is a Tax Collector of Gotabari Khopatia Gaon Panchayat, District Dhubri has been working in the said post since the date of his appointment i.e. 22.1.2002. The State Government in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department had approved payment of fixed monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month to 1081 Nos. of casual workers engaged in different Panchayatiraj institutions, such as Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. The casual workers entitled to payment of the said wages of Rs. 4500/- per month have been divided into two categories i.e. those who were appointed prior to 1.4.93, totalling 1081 Nos. and those who were appointed between 1.4.93 and 31.3.2006, totalling 731 Nos. The petitioner not being included in the said list, had filed WP(C) No. 5156/2012 which had been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2012 in the following terms: “Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department to look into the grievance of the petitioner, if necessary, by calling for the relevant record from the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad and pass necessary order(s) within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The departmental Commissioner and Secretary may also give an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties before passing any order.” Pursuant to the order dated 7.11.2012 passed in WP(C) 5156/2012, the Principal Secretary to the Govt. The departmental Commissioner and Secretary may also give an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties before passing any order.” Pursuant to the order dated 7.11.2012 passed in WP(C) 5156/2012, the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department had issued the order dated 28.6.2013, the operative portion of which is as follows: “After going through the above, I have come to the conclusion that the appointment letter issued by the President Gotabari Khopatia G.P. dtd 22/01/2002 to the petitioner as Tax Collector on the basis of which it was issued does not appear to be genuine as the supporting documents prepared in this regard and produced before the hearing are found fabricated and manipulated. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner could not be considered and as such his claim is rejected.”. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner did not have any access to the original documents, the petitioner could not present his case properly before the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department. He thus submits that he may be given another chance to represent his case before the Principal Secretary along with all original records that might be in his possession. Mr M Khataniar, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that all the original documents that were in possession of the petitioner had already been produced before the Principal Secretary and the same is clearly reflected in the impugned order dated 28.6.2013. He also submits that the impugned order dated 28.6.2013 having been passed pursuant to the order dated 7.11.2012 passed in WP(C) 5156/2012, the entire issue has been settled and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that at best, the disputed questions of fact, if any, can be decided only by a Civil Court. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The impugned order dated 28.6.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department at Para 7 shows that the petitioner had produced the original documents in his possession before the said authority and had also been given an opportunity of being heard. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The impugned order dated 28.6.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department at Para 7 shows that the petitioner had produced the original documents in his possession before the said authority and had also been given an opportunity of being heard. The question of dates being erased from the register, the alleged irregularities regarding the dates of signature and dates of meeting being disputed questions of fact, this Court is not in a position to decide the matter in its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.