Gauhati High Court
Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 20 December, 2019
Author: A.M. Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010002852011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 6/2011
1:SRI DILIP KUMAR SINHA and ANR.
JUNIOR ENGINEER CIVIL SILCHAR RURAL ROAD DIVISION PWD,
SILCHAR-1.
2: SHRI SATYAJIT SINHA
JUNIOR ENGINEER CIVIL KARIMGANJ STATE ROAD DIVISION
PWD
KARIMGANJ-1
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS, GOVT. OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 6.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
PWD DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PWD ESTT.B BRANCH
DISPUR
GUAHATI-6.
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD ROADS/BUILDINGS
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
GUWAHATI-3.
6:ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA-22
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.U DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C BORUAH
WP(C) 6700/2010
1:JOYDEEP NATH and 9 ORS
S/O LT. J.C NATH LASKAR
JUNIOR ENGINEER
PWD
SILCHAR RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
2: SANJIB KANOO
JR. ENGINEER
PWD SILCHAR RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
3: MD. FAKRUL ALAM BARBHUIYA
JR ENGINEER
PWD RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
4: MD. ZAHIRUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY
JR.ENGINEER
PWD RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
5: RAJU PAUL
JR.ENGINEER
PWD RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
6: AVIJIT PAUL
Page No.# 3/5
JR. ENGINEER
PWD RURAL ROAD DIVN
SILCHAR-1
7: BANIBRATA CHAKRABORTY
JR. ENGINEER
KARIMGANJ STATE ROAD DIVN
PWD
KARIMGANJ-1
8: MD. AMIR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
JR. ENGINEER
PWD RURAL ROAD DIVN
HAILAKANDI
9: HRISHIKESH DAS
JR.ENGINEER CIVIL KARIMGANJ STATE ROAD DIVN
PWD
KARIMGANJ-1
10: ABDUL HASSAN CHOUDHURY
JR.ENGINEER MECHANICAL OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
PWD MECHANICAL SUB DIVN
SILCHAR.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECY.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT
GOVT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:PRINCIPAL SECY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PWD DEPTT
DISPUR
Page No.# 4/5
GHY-6
4:UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PWD ESTT.B BRANCH
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD ROADS/BUILDINGS ASSAM
GHY-3
6:ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP.BY THE SECY. JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA-22
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B C DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
APSC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 20-12-2019 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J) In the proceeding dated 06.12.2019, the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein, it was provided that if pursuant to selection initiated during the currency of the old pension scheme, one batch of people were appointed by making the old pension scheme applicable to them in such circumstance, if another batch of people similarly situated from the same selection process were appointed after new pension scheme came into force and such delay in appointment was not because of any fault of the persons concerned, in such situation, the old pension scheme itself would be applicable.
In the present case also, the appellants contend that they are similarly situated as of the persons involved before the Delhi High Court. The respondent authorities dispute the said contention and states that in the instant case all the notified vacancies of the advertisement under which the selection process was initiated had already been filled up before the new pension scheme came into force and the persons appointed were governed by the old pension scheme, but as the petitioners were appointed beyond the Page No.# 5/5 notified vacancies therefore, they belong to a different class having an intelligible differentia with the object at hand.
In order to substantiate the contention, the respondent authorities were required to produce the records of the appointment of the petitioners so as to arrive at a conclusion on the aforesaid question.
Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel states that because of the prevailing circumstance, the record could not be produced and would be produced by the next date fixed.
List this matter on 30.01.2020.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant