Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010248542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6609/2025 NARAYAN DEKA S/O- LATE MOHADOR DEKA, RESIDENT OF GANESH NAGAR, BELTOLA BASHISTHA, KRISHNA CHURA PATH, GUWAHATI-29, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-03. 3:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER KAMRUP CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-03. 4:THE PROJECT OFFICER INTENSIVE EGGS. AND POULTRY PRODUCTION CUM MARKETING CENTRE A.H. AND VETY. DEPT. KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BHUYAN, MR. M U E BHUYAN,MR. A ALI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A.H and V. DEPT., Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 24.11.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. JK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by that his claim for regularization, pursuant to the process undertaken in terms of the policy decision taken by the State in deference to the direction contained in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, his name was inadvertently left out. Being aggrieved, he came before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5276/2014 and this writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 17.10.2014 directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in deference to the relevant facts upholding the case. Thereafter, in spite of such directions, the case of the petitioner was not considered. 3. Be that as it may, by filing the representation dated 22.10.2025 the petitioner has approached before the Project Officer, namely, the respondent no.4 praying for regularization or to pay the minimum of pay scale from the month of October, 2001 in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Page No.# 3/3 representation was received on the same day i.e. 22.10.2025. This representation according to the petitioner has not been considered and necessary order has not been passed till date. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Be that as it may, since the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 22.10.2025 filed by the petitioner, therefore, without expressing anything on merit, this writ petition stands closed directing the Project Officer, namely, the respondent no.4 to dispose of the representation dated 22.10.2025 filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order. If any such order is passed in the meantime copies thereof shall be served on the writ petitioner. If the representation has been referred to the higher authorities then the higher authorities will make endeavour to pass the order in terms of the directions of the Court and thereafter, serve copies thereof on the writ petitioner. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant