Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010167502025 2025:GAU-AS:13833 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4247/2025 AMIYA KUMAR ROY S/O LT RUP NATH ROY R/O VILL DAHALAPARA PO AND PS KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR BTAS ASSAM PIN 783370 VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN AND ORS ASEB/APGCL ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) APGCL ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) APGCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, MR A N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. H. R . DAS, SC, APGCL Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 15.10.2025 Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sahiinii, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power General Corporation Limited [APGCL] for all the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had taken part in a selection process for filling up a vacant post of Assistant Teacher of Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station [B.T.P.S] High School in the year 1987. The petitioner has projected that he was, however, asked by the respondent authorities as to whether he would accept the post of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary School of B.T.P.S., if he would not appointed for the post for which he had been interviewed for on 30.05.1987. Subsequent to the above facts, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher of B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School in 1987. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022 projecting that the petitioner should be given the graduate scale of pay and not the pay scale of Assistant Teacher of B.T.P.S. Lower Primary School as he had taken part in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher of High School and not a Lower Primary School. It was submitted before the Court that the petitioner submitted a representation in June, 1989 with regard to his grievance and the same was not attended to. It was further projected that the petitioner was due to retire in few months and accordingly, a direction should be issued to the respondents to grant graduate scale of pay to the petitioner. 4. When the petitioner approached this Court earlier, it was found that the petitioner subsequent to his representation submitted in June, 1989, approached the Court after more than three decades and the Court was of the view that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches. After the Court recorded that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches, the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a representation again before the Managing Director, APGCL [the respondent no. 2]. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed by this Court while dismissing the writ petition on withdrawal by an Order dated 21.07.2022. Liberty was given to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent no. 2 and it was observed that in the event the petitioner would file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the same within a reasonable period. It was on 22.07.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 renewing his prayer for grant of graduate scale of pay. The respondent no. 2 by an Order dated 03.08.2022 rejected the prayer made in the representation holding that there was no reasonable and valid ground. 5. It was after rejection of the representation on 03.08.2022, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition on 29.07.2025, that is, after about three years from the date of such rejection. 6. What is also noticeable from the facts is that when this Court on 21.07.2022 had already observed that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4677/2022 had suffered from delay and laches, the petitioner then withdrew the writ petition, without any liberty to approach this Court again. The petitioner only sought a liberty to file a fresh representation to renew his prayer for graduate scale of pay. When the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without any liberty to approach again this Court, the rejection of the representation by the Order dated 03.08.2022 would not confer any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court again. 7. Where a petitioner withdraws a petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without permission to institute a fresh petition, remedy under Article 226 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied in the writ petition and it would not be open to him to file a fresh petition in the High Court under the same Article. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is found be not entertainable and Page No.# 4/4 therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant