Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Md. Ayub Hussain vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 11 January, 2024

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                   Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010015142017




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1404/2017

         MD. AYUB HUSSAIN
         S/O. MD. AMIR HUSSAIN, VILL. NA-ALI-MUR, P.O. PURANIGUDAM, P.S.
         SAMAGURI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R.C.
         NAGAR, TRIPURA.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA and 7 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, NEW DELHI.

         2:CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

         NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LOWER NEW
         COLONY
         BOOKLAND COMPOUND
         SHILLONG.

         3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

          PERSONAL and ADMINISTRATION
          NEEPCO LTD. SHILLONG.

         4:SENIOR PERSONAL OFFICER
          NEEPCO LTD. SHILLONG.

         5:THE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL
          NEEPCO LTD. SHILLONG.

         6:DEPUTY MANAGER PandA ESST.
          NEEPCO LTD. SHILLONG.

         7:THE SR. MANAGER P and A
                                                                    Page No.# 2/2


             AGTP
             NEEPCO LTD. R.C. NAGAR
             TRIPURA W.

            8:THE SR. MANAGER HR

             AGTP
             NEEPCO LTD. R.C. NAGAR
             TRIPURA W

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.A CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.




                                     BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                             ORDER

Date : 11.01.2024 The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter be adjourned for 2 (two) weeks as the arguing counsel for NEEPCO is indisposed.

He further submits that the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been obtained.

Accordingly, prayer is allowed. List this matter again after 2 (two) weeks.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant