Gauhati High Court
India Brahma And Anr vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 22 February, 2019
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010031952019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1211/2019
1:INDIA BRAHMA AND ANR.
S/O- LT NINAN BRAHMA, R/O- ALENGMARI (SONAPUR), P.O.
DUMARIGURI, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-
2: BIMAL CHANDRA NARZARY
S/O- SRI PURNA CHANDRA NARZARY
R/O- RUP NAGWAR
KOKRAJHAR TOWN
WARD NO.4
P.O. KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND
FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GHY- 37
3:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE (EC-II) DEPTT.
DISPUR
Page No.# 2/4
GHY-06
5:THE BTC
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY.
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
6:THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
AND CHD BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
7:A. SWARGOWARI
IPS
ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CHD
BTC KOKRAJHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 22-02-2019 Heard Mr. BP Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners' are Casual Workers in the Bodoland Territorial Council in the Department of Environment and Forest. The petitioner No. 1 is working as a Casual Labour and posted at Forest Depot Office, Kokrajhar Forest Depot, Haltugaon Division, Kokrajhar since 21.04.2005, while the petitioner No. 2 is working as a Casual Worker under the Range of Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary, Choraikhola since 01.03.2006.
The petitioners' counsel submits that the BTAD authorities had decided to implement the decision of this court, passed in State of Assam -vrs- Upen Das & 835 Ors., in WA No. 45/2014. He submits that as per para 22 of the said judgment, certain Page No.# 3/4 benefits were to be given to Casual Workers, who had rendered more than 10 (ten) years of continuous service.
The BTAD had thereafter submitted a proposal to the State Government for implementation of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014, along with a list of persons, who were supposed to be given benefits as per para 22 of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014. The petitioners' names were included in the 1 st list sent by the BTAD to the State Government. Subsequently, a 2nd list was sent by the BTAD to the State Government for implementation of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014. Here also, the names of the petitioners were included.
Consequent to the above, the State Government informed the BTAD authorities to submit the list of persons who were to get benefits, as provided under para 22 of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014, in the form of a format prepared by the State Government. The BTAD authorities accordingly submitted the list in the format provided by the State Government.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' names were however conspicuously absent in the format sent by the BTAD authorities to the State Government, which was sent on 31.12.2018. On enquiry, the petitioners' came to learn that in place of the petitioners, two other names have been included, namely, Sl. Nos. 729 and 743 of the list.
The petitioners' counsel submits that the BTAD authorities seen to have committed an unintentional error and in view of the above, he prays that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the authorities with regard to their grievance. He also prays that a direction may be issued to the authorities to examine and dispose of the petitioners' representation by a speaking order within a specified time period.
Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. DS Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R Borpuzari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A Khound, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submit that they have got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners' counsel.
Page No.# 4/4 In view of the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty being given to the petitioners to file a representation, as to why their names have been left out from the last list submitted by the BTAD authorities to the State Government, in respect of the benefits to be provided as per para 22 of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014 (State of Assam -vrs- Upen Das & 835 Ors.).
The petitioners shall submit the representation to the respondent No. 5, within a period of 10 (ten) days' from today, who shall thereafter dispose of the same by a speaking order within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with a certified copy of this order.
Till then, the petitioners shall not be dislodged from the posts that they are working in.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant