Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 77 (GAU)

NOWSHAD ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-01-17

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayasthya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they were engaged as Work Charge Helpers under the office of the Executive Engineer, Goalpara, Investigation Division, (Irrigation) Department, Goalpara in the year 1981. According to the petitioners, the State Government took a policy decision for regularizing the Work Charge Helpers and Muster Roll Workers. The policy decision was circulated by the Department of Personnel (B) vide Circular dated 20.04.1995 (Annexure-1) amongst others. As per the circular, the cases of those workers who were entertained before 01.04.1993 were to be considered for regularization in consultation with the Finance Department. The respondents instead of regularizing the service of the petitioners discontinued their engagement and therefore, they have approached this Court through the instant writ petition for their reinstatement and regularization of their services besides seeking release of their salaries as per the circular dated 20.04.1995. 3. Mr. A.K. Purkayasthya appearing for the petitioners submits that inspite of regularization policy of the State Government, the case of the petitioners were left out and they were not considered for regularization. Instead of regularization of their services they were disengaged from their service. He therefore submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in view of the circular dated 20.04.1993. 4. Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners were only engaged as work charge helper under the establishment of the respondent No.3 in the year 1981. Upon completion of their assigned work, they were disengaged. He submits that considering the cutoff date of 01.04.1993, it can be seen that the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay and therefore liable to be rejected. He further submits that besides the delay, the petitioners do not have any right to claim for regularization. Dr. B. Ahmed has produced an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by this Court in WP (C) No.7276 of 2017 wherein the petitioners had also sought for their reinstatement after 23 years of their disengagement. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners in the present case also having approached this Court belatedly, writ petition should be dismissed. 5. Dr. B. Ahmed has produced an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by this Court in WP (C) No.7276 of 2017 wherein the petitioners had also sought for their reinstatement after 23 years of their disengagement. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners in the present case also having approached this Court belatedly, writ petition should be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. The respondents have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition and therefore what remains to be examined and considered is the writ petition, the oral submission of Dr. B. Ahmed and the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2017 passed in WP (C) No.7276 of 2017. According to the petitioners, they were Work Charge Helpers engaged in the year 1981 and thereafter, instead of considering their regularizing the respondents disengaged them. No specific date has been provided in the writ petition as to when the petitioners were disengaged. However, considering the circular dated 20.04.1995, it can be presumed that the petitioners were disengaged prior to 01.04.1993 since the benefit of regularization is made available only to those who were appointed before the cut-off date as per the circular dated 20.04.1995. The petitioners however have filed the present writ petition only on 03.03.2010 without any explanation for the delay in approaching the Court. As can be noticed, a coordinate bench of this Court in WP (c) No. 7276 of 2017 had dismissed the writ petition on account of the inordinate delay in approaching the Court after the disengagement of the petitioners therein. Similar is the case with the present writ petitioners. Not only have they failed to explain the delay but they have failed to disclose when they were disengaged by the respondents. Having opined thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same fails. 6. The respondents are however at liberty to engage the petitioners if so advised which however will not be in continuity of their earlier engagement made in the year 1981. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.