Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010126392013 2025:GAU-AS:263 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7297/2013 NEERAJ BHARALI S/O- LT. G.C. BHARALI, R/O- B- 4/103, GANESH VILLAGE, BORSOJAI, GHY- 29, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6. 3:THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY- 5 ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. U. J. Saikia, Advocate : Mr. R. K. Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Chakrabarty, Government Advocate Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 07.01.2025 Heard Mr. U. J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Chakrabarty, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Court of the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in Appeal Case No.14ATA/2012 and have sought for the reliefs as sought for in the appeal including the relief to promote the Petitioner to the rank of Additional Chief Inspector of Factories w.e.f. 13.10.2004 notionally thereby granting him necessary pay benefits with all consequential benefits. 3. From the materials on record, it reveals that taking into account the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2002-2003, the Petitioner was not recommended to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Inspector of Factories in the meeting held on 25.06.2010. It is also relevant to take note of that this is the second round of litigation inasmuch as in the previous round i.e. in WP(C) No.854/2008, this Court vide an order dated 02.07.2009 had made observations to the effect that the adverse remarks recorded in the Petitioner’s ACR for the year 2002- 03 and 2005-06 were not in consonance with the ACR Rules. 4. Be that as it may, a question however arises that even assuming for argument sake, the Petitioner was not considered by applying the proper yardstick, can this Court at this stage issue a writ directing the DPC for Page No.# 3/3 consideration of the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Additional Chief Inspector of Factories which would mean that there should be a review DPC. In the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be done now taking into account that the Petitioner retired as far back in the year 2012. In that view of the matter, as it is settled principle of law that writs should not be issued in futility, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction in the present proceedings. 5. Under such circumstances, the writ petition fails for which the same stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant