Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010266172024 2025:GAU-AS:4891- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/138/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ASSAM OIL DIVISION, DIGBOI PO DIGBOI, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM, 783171, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (EMPLOYEES RELATION) SRI SHYAMOL KAKOTI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. VERSUS KAMALAKSHA DUTTA AND ANR S/O LATE KSHIRESH CHANDRA DUTTA, RESIDENT OF KALI BARI AREA, G.M PLOT NO.. 875, PO DIGBOI, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786171 2:SMTI SITA THAPA D/O LATE BHUTO THAPA RESIDENT OF NEAR DIGBOI CLUB IOCL(AOD) QTR 839-A PO DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 78617 Linked Case : WA/134/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD (ASSAM OIL DIVISION) DIGBOI P.O- DIGBOI DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786171 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (EMPLOYEES RELATION) SRI SHYAMOL KAKOTI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Page No.# 2/6 VERSUS C H GOVINDA S/O- LATE C BAIRAGI R/O- CENTRAL DIGBOI QTR NO. 1022A DIGBOI DIST- TINSUKIA 786171 Linked Case : WA/139/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ASSAM OIL DIVISION DIGBOI PO DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 783171 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (EMPLOYEES RELATION) SRI SHYAMOL KAKOTI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. VERSUS KISHAN KR CHHETRY S/O LATE PUSPA LAL CHHETRY RESIDENT OF B/22 CMH AREA DIGBOI PO DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786171. For the appellant : Mr. A. Sarma, Mr. K. Kalita, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. B. Baruah, Advocate Page No.# 3/6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 23-04-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) In view of the order passed today in I.A.(Civil) 79/2025 and I.A.(Civil) 93/2025, Registry has numbered the connected writ appeals as WA 138/2025 and WA 139/2025, respectively today itself and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the above-referred two writ appeals are heard on merits along with WA 134/2025. 2. These writ appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.3710/2019, 3719/2019 and 4349/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petitions and directed the appellant Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IOCL’) (Assam Oil Division) to regularise the services of the writ petitioners/respondents herein. The directions given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment of this effect are reproduced hereunder: “17. In view of the above, this Court allows the writ petitions and directs the respondent authority in IOC-AOD to regularise the services of the petitioners and such regularization along with the benefits accrued thereof be given to the petitioners w.e.f. the date the same was given to other similarly situated candidates and more particularly, the appellant in WA 6/2019. The case of the petitioners being squarely covered by the decisions taken by the Division Bench of this Court both in WA 56/2018 and WA 6/2019. The respondent authority shall implement this order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment and Order.” 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the private respondents in these appeals were initially appointed to the posts of Shramik (Grade-I), Sweeper- cum-attendant (Grade- I) and Teacher-Primary School (Hindi Medium) (Grade- Page No.# 4/6 IV) AOD H.S. School, respectively on compassionate ground on 04.02.1995 and 24.02.1995, respectively. Their engagement with the IOCL (AOD), Digboi Refinery continued till filing of the above-referred writ petitions by them before the learned Single Judge, i.e. up to the year 2019. The private respondents approached the Writ Court by filing the above-referred writ petitions with the prayer to issue directions to the respondent IOCL to regularise their services mainly on the ground that services of similarly situated employees had been regularised by the IOCL and this Court also issued direction for regularisation of services of the similarly situated employees vide judgments dated 06.06.2018 and 26.07.2022, respectively passed in WA 56/2018 and WA 6/2019, respectively. 4. The claim for regularisation of services of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) was strenuously opposed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that a Division Bench of this Court in WA 6/2019, while relying on the earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench passed in WA 56/2018, already granted the relief of regularisation to the similarly situated employees, who had also been appointed on compassionate ground, has allowed the writ petitions vide impugned judgment. 6. The learned Single Judge has rejected the contention of the appellants that the judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 6/2019 cannot be treated as a precedent while observing that the said judgment of the Division Bench has already attained finality with the dismissal of the SLP filed against it. Page No.# 5/6 7. The learned Single Judge has further observed that even though the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the said SLP kept the question of law open, it does not mean that the decision of the Division Bench has lost its precedential value. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the learned Single Judge. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the case of the private respondents is distinguishable from those employees in whose case, the relief of regularisation was granted by this Court, particularly, the appellants in WA 56/2018 because those employees were appointed pursuant to a vacancy notification dated 07.04.1995 and though their engagement was temporary, they were appointed after following due selection process whereas in the case of the private respondents herein, they were not appointed pursuant to any vacancy notification and while appointing them on temporary basis on compassionate ground, selection process was also not followed. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, submitted that the case of the private respondents cannot be treated as equal to those persons to whom the benefit of regularisation was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 56/2018. 10. We have considered the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant but found no merit in the same. As a matter of fact, the said argument has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 6/2019 and the Division Bench has rejected the same while observing that only because the appointment to an employee was given on compassionate ground, his claim for regularisation cannot be rejected because the fact remains that he has worked all throughout from the date of his appointment and initial entry in service in the Corporation. Page No.# 6/6 11. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to differ from the said view as taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA 6/2019 filed by the similarly situated employees. 12. Hence, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant