Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010124782014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2780/2014 JAYANTA NATH S/O- LT. MAHESH CHANDRA NATH, R/O- PANJABARI, GHY- 37, KAMRUP M, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 6, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRAION DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6 ASSAM. 3:THE DY. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATION DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6 ASSAM. 4:SONESWAR DAS ADD. SECY. RETD. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATION DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A CHETRY, MS. L DAS,MR. M P SARMA,MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR.U K NAIR Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SAD,MR.B SAHARIA,MR.A M BARBHUIYA,MS.F BEGUM,MR.Z HAMMAD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 05.06.2025 Heard Mr. M. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Secretariat Administration Department (SAD) appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel is present for the respondent No.4. 2. The writ petitioner herein, who was serving under the Secretariat Administration Department, Government of Assam retired from service as a Joint Secretary on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2014. Just a few months before his retirement, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition inter-alia assailing the gradation list dated 26.02.2014 of Joint Secretaries in the Secretariat service as on 31.01.2014 with further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion by giving all consequential pecuniary benefits. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 has been erroneously shown to be senior to the writ petitioner as a result of which, he has been deprived from promotion to the next higher rank of Additional Secretary. 3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed joint affidavit clarifying their stand in the matter. The respondent No.4 has also contested the case of the petitioner Page No.# 3/5 by filing affidavit. 4. It appears from the record that on 26.02.2014 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, SAD had published a provisional gradation list of Joint Secretaries in the Secretariat Service showing the position obtaining as on 31.01.2014. In the said list the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.4 in order of seniority whereas the private respondent was placed at serial No.3 i.e. just above the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said gradation list the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 21.05.2014 before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming that despite being eligible for being considered for promotion to the rank of Additional Secretary, his case has been ignored on account of the fact that no meeting of the Selection Committee for filing up the vacant posts could be held. According to the petitioner’s counsel, since no action was taken on the said representation submitted by the petitioner, the instant writ petition had been filed. 5. Mr. Phukan, learned departmental counsel, on the other hand, submits that this being a very old matter he is not prepared with the instructions to make submissions before the Court today. 6. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.4,on the other hand, submits that due to failure on the part of the petitioner to assail the seniority position assigned to the respondent No.4 on the previous occasions, the claim of the petitioner would be barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. The writ petitioner belongs to the unreserved category. From the materials available on record, I find that the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have mentioned about the retrospective promotion given to some senior members of Page No.# 4/5 the service after rectifying the gradation list whereby, the inter-se seniority position earlier assigned to the reserved category candidates were reversed and general category candidates were placed higher to them in terms of the direction issued by the Assam Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 13.06.2007 passed in connection with Appeal Case No.21 ATA of 2003. Having stated above, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have made the following statements in paragraph 13, which are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “13. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the petitioner is not the only candidate in this process of retrospective promotion. It is stated that all the seniors will get the retrospective promotion in all the cadres, but even then all the cases of general category candidates have been examined and considered. It is not a fact that the petitioner has been deprived. He will get his due benefit on completion of whole process which is taking a bit of time.” 8. From the averments made in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 it is thus apparent that when the petitioner had retired from service the departmental authorities were still examining the question of retrospective promotion of general category candidates as well as their entitlement to receive pecuniary benefits. In continuance of that process, what step, if any, has been taken with regard to the claim of the petitioner is, however, not available on record. The learned departmental counsel has also not been able to throw any light on the said aspect of the matter. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service more than 11 years back and therefore, at this point of time entertaining Page No.# 5/5 any plea for alteration of the gradation list may not be legally tenable. However, since the departmental authorities have assured the petitioner that his case for retrospective promotion with consequential benefit is still under consideration, in the absence of anything available on record to the contrary, this Court would reasonably presume that the said aspect of the matter is still open. 10. Situated thus, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of by granting four weeks time to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 ventilating his grievance in the matter. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today by enclosing a certified copy of this order, the same be examined and disposed of by a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant