Biren Borah v. The State of Assam and 5 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010210132024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/391/2024o BIRENoBORAHo S/OoLATEoTUWARAMoBORAH,oRESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoBELTOLAo (AMSHOI),oPSoRAHA,oDISToNAGAON,oASSAMo782103 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo5oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMM.oANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDISPUR,oGHY-6, DIST.-oKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM 2:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPWDo(ROADS) oASSAM oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATI-3 oDIST.-oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAM 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oFINANCE oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPUR oGHY-6 oDIST.-oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAM 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPWRD oDHAKUAKHANAoTERRITORIALoROADoDIVISION oGHILAMARA oDIST.-oLAKHIMPUR oPIN-o787053 Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-29 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 For petitioner(s)/appellant(s) : Ms. St. Bokth, Advocate

Ms. D. Angana, Advocate

For respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Medhi, Advocate

– BEFORE – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

18.12.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in 2065/2023. The appellant approached the writ court by filing the above-referred writ petition with the grievance that despite regularization of his services vide order dated

10.02.2022, passed by the Executive Engineer PWRD, Dhakuakhana Territorial Road Division, the respondents have not granted pensionary benefits to the appellant after his retirement from service on 28.02.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents claiming that the order dated 10.02.2022 regularising the services of the appellant was passed by the Executive Engineer, who is not competent to pass such order, that too, without prior approval of the Finance Department. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the above fact situation, has come to the conclusion that since the regularization of the services of the Page No.# 3/3 appellant was not in accordance with law, it cannot be deemed that his services had been regularized and on account of that he is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as payable to a regular employee. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to persuade us to take a different view than the view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge. It is noticed that the learned Single Judge has already observed that the appellant being a Casual Worker, would be entitled to get payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits, if any, in accordance with law. Hence, we do not find any case for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant