Gauhati High Court
Sanjay Kumar Ray vs The Assam Power Distribution Company ... on 19 December, 2022
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010237532022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7620/2022
SANJAY KUMAR RAY
S/O NARAYAN CH. RAY, R/O VILL- LATIBARI PT-III, P.O.-LATIBARI, P.S.-
ABHAYAPURI, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, APDCL, BIJULEE BHAWAN,
GUWAHATI-01, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
APDCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-01
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
HRA
APDCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-01
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BONGAIGAON ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
ASSAM
5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
ABHAYAPURI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
ABHAYAPURI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
LAR
ABHAYAPURI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 19-12-2022 Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent APDCL Authority.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner being a 10 th passed educated unemployed youth was working as an Outsourced Sahayak under Abhayapuri Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL since 01.01.2012 from time to time as and when required without any remuneration and in that regard the respondent authority has issued various Experience Certificates in favour of the petitioner from time to time. The said experience Certificates have been enclosed as Annexure-2 series to the writ petition. The petitioner while working as an Outsourced Sahayak applied for a regular post of Sahayak through the Online Recruitment Portal of APDCL. As on the date of filing the said application, the petitioner had a total work experience of 1825 days i.e. 5 (five) years as Sahayak under the respondent authority as on 31.03.2018. However, nothing happened to the application so filed.
Page No.# 3/6
3. It has also been mentioned that during the lockdown period of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner had also worked for the respondent authority and on 01.05.2020, an Identity Card in that respect was issued by the respondent authority. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner on 06.10.2011 submitted an application before the Chief Minister, Assam praying therein for considering the case of the petitioner on humanitarian ground and to direct concerned respondents to take necessary action for absorping the petitioner at the APDCL in the rank as per his qualification and work experience. The said application of the petitioner was forwarded to the APDCL, Assam for doing the needful. The respondent authority forwarded the same to the PWD Department on 30.11.2021 and later on the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent No.3 for necessary action. However, the grievances of the petitioner remained unredressed. Therefore, the petitioner vide another communication dated 31.03.2022 addressed the D.G.M., Bongaigaon Electrical Division, APDCL prayed for necessary and quick action.
4. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner could come to learn from the Online Portal of the Centralized Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System that in pursuance to action taken on 14.06.2022, the grievance of the petitioner has been disposed of with the remark "the applicant is requested to apply for job at APDCL as and when the next notification for recruitment comes out". It has also mentioned that immediately after the disposal of the grievance, the petitioner had been terminated from his work by the respondent authority without citing any reason.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the word "termination" as used in the paragraph No.10 of Page No.# 4/6 the writ petition would not be proper taking into account that the respondent authorities having not appointed the petitioner, the question of termination did not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to two orders passed by this Court dated 03.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1241/2020 as well as the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1242/2020 whereby this Court had granted certain reliefs to similarly situated persons like the petitioner who were working as Sahayak in APDCL by directing the respondent APDCL to consider their case.
6. Under such circumstances, the petitioner having been aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not absorping in the establishment of the respondent authorities sought for a similar direction in terms with the orders dated 03.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1241/2020 and WP(C) No. 1242/2020 respectively by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. At this stage, before going into merits of the instant writ petition, this Court finds it relevant to take into account the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1241/2020. The directions issued by this Court in the said order are at Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. In the instant case also as it is the claim of the petitioners that they have been working as contractual employees for more than 10 years and therefore would be entitled to the benefits as indicated in the above extracted portion of the judgment dated 17.01.2017.
9. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to Page No.# 5/6 have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioner are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary at least in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014, State of Assam Vs. Upen Das and ors.
10. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, we request the respondent APDCL to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered accordingly."
8. The petitioner in the instant writ petition stated that his case is similarly situated to that of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1241/2020. However, Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned Standing counsel for the APDCL submits that a perusal of the said directions passed by the Co-ordinate of this Court would clearly show that the person have to be working for more than 10 years. He however submitted that in paragraph No.10 of the said order, there was a direction for the respondent APDCL to consider even if the person had not worked for 10 years.
9. The question as to whether the petitioner has completed 10 years or less than 10 years is a question of fact which would be best if the question is left for Page No.# 6/6 the authorities to decide. Under such circumstances, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction to the respondent APDCL Authority to decide as to whether the petitioner have worked for 10 years or less than 10 years and further consider the case of the petitioner in terms with paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 03.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1241/2020
10. With above observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant