Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 618 (GAU)

Folin Ch. Ray v. State of Assam

2017-05-22

NELSON SAILO

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S R Rabha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. S R Baruah, the learned Government advocate for all the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Special Police Officers (SPOs) under the enabling provision of Section 23 of the Assam Police Act, 2007. A communication dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure-II) was made by the Superintendent of Railway Police to the Superintendent of Police of Kokrajhar and Chirang to the effect that 250 nos. of SPOs, who are Ex-Home Guards be deployed within their respective jurisdiction and the personal details of such SPOs be submitted for drawl of wages etc. The petitioners were allowed to continue in their duties up to 31st of January, 2011 and thereafter, no further engagement or extension has been accorded to them. Hence, they have approached this Court for payment of their wages with effect from the month of August, 2011 and also for their regularization in service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S R Rabha submits that as far as the pending wages are concerned, the same has already been paid to the petitioners, but, however, as observed by this Court while issuing notice of motion, the operation of the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-VII) was stayed and therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. However, upon perusing the order dated 07.12.2011, although the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 was stayed but the petitioners were not permitted to work beyond the extended period of six months, w.e.f. 31.07.2011. It is also noticed that the petitioners as Ex-Home Guards have been employed as SPOs by the Railways. 4. A perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly, Annexures-V and VI shows that the petitioners were engaged for a specific period and thereafter, they were permitted extension for another six months. In other words, they were engaged as SPOs for a specific period and wages for their engagement has been duly paid for the engaged period. The petitioners have, however, not approached the respondent authorities for considering their regularization in their respective engaged posts and instead they have preferred the instant writ petition. 5. In other words, they were engaged as SPOs for a specific period and wages for their engagement has been duly paid for the engaged period. The petitioners have, however, not approached the respondent authorities for considering their regularization in their respective engaged posts and instead they have preferred the instant writ petition. 5. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court and in the absence of any scheme to consider the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit their representation before the State respondents for consideration. The petitioners shall file such representation before the respondent No. 1 within 1(one) month from today and the respondent concerned shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and not later than 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such representation. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.