Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 227 (GAU)

BHUPENDRA SINHA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-02-22

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
Ajit Singh, C.J. 1. Ms. B Choudhury, learned counsel for review petitioners, Mr.P Nayak, learned counsel for Respondent No.5, Mr. C Baruah, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 and Mr.DJ Kapil, learned counsel for Respondent No.7. 2. Heard on I.A.(Civil) No.302/2017, which is an application for review of our order dated 23.1.2017 passed in Review Petition No.82/2013. 3. In all, 32 review petitioners were appointed as Support Staff in the Fast Track Courts, which were established under a Scheme. Their appointments were made in terms of the requirement of the Scheme. The Fast Track Courts were initially established for 5 years, but were continued much beyond that period. The State Government also later vide Notification dated 29.9.2012 made 20 existing Fast Track Courts as regular courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges and created various posts for proper functioning of such courts. Since the review petitioners were working as Support Staff in the Fast Track Courts, they filed WP(C) No.5153/2010 for regularization of their services against the newly created posts, but a Division Bench of this High Court, vide order dated 20.12.2012, disagreed with them and disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. 4. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2012, the review petitioners filed Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No.12560/2013 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 12.4.2013, with a liberty to file review petition on a limited issue. The review petitioners, therefore, filed Review Petition No.82/2013. And during the pendency of Review Petition, except for 5 review petitioners, the services of all other review petitioners were regularized on their selection and appointment against the sanctioned posts. The review petitioners, therefore, filed Review Petition No.82/2013. And during the pendency of Review Petition, except for 5 review petitioners, the services of all other review petitioners were regularized on their selection and appointment against the sanctioned posts. The dispute regarding regularization, therefore, remained only in respect of 5 review petitioners, but by mistake, learned counsel for the review petitioners gave a list, which mentioned the names of following 8 persons:- (i) Bhupendra Sinha, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, FTC-3 (ii) Bikash Bora, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC (iii) Prashanta Bora, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, FTC (iv) Sandip Das, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, FTC (v) Kumud Kalita, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Nagaon, FTC (vi) Umesh Rabha, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, FTC (vii) Kamal Baruah, Peon, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC (viii) Padum Bharali, Driver, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, FTC 5. In the result, vide order dated 23.1.2017 Review Petition was disposed of with certain directions as well as in terms of settlement mentioned therein, governing the service conditions of above named 8 persons. 6. It is stated in the present application that instead of mentioning the names of only 5 review petitioners, by mistake, the names of 3 more persons were shown in the list, although they were neither the petitioners in WP(C) No.5153/2010 nor review petitioners in Review Petition No.82/2013. A prayer is, therefore, made to delete the names of 3 such persons from order dated 23.1.2017. Their names are as under:- (i) Sandip Das, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, FTC (ii) Kumud Kalita, Bench Assistant, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Nagaon, FTC (iii) Umesh Rabha, Stenographer, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, FTC 7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, has no objection in deleting the names of above mentioned 3 persons. 8. For the reasons stated in the application, we are also of the considered view that the mistake on the part of review petitioners is bonafide and the same deserves to be corrected. We, accordingly, allow the application and direct that the names of 3 persons mentioned above, be deleted from order dated 23.1.2017 and words “8 review petitioners” be substituted with “5 review petitioners”. We, accordingly, allow the application and direct that the names of 3 persons mentioned above, be deleted from order dated 23.1.2017 and words “8 review petitioners” be substituted with “5 review petitioners”. A certified copy of the corrected order be also issued to the review petitioners on payment of usual charges. 9. With the above direction, the application stands disposed of.