Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010008592025 2025:GAU-AS:1290 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/583/2025 PARAMANANDA GOGOI S/O LATE DIMBESWAR GOGOI R/O RED CROSS ROAD, BYE LANE, KHALIAMARI P.O. AND P.S.DIBRUGARH DIST.DIBRUGARH,ASSAM PIN-786001 VERSUS THE DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 4 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ASSAM PIN-786001 4:SUMAN KALITA URBAN TECHNICAL OFFICER DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ASSAM PIN-786001 5:MASUD AHMED URBAN TECHNICAL OFFICER DIBRUGARH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ASSAM PIN-786001 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHOWDHURY, MR I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 07.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation. He is being aggrieved by an order dated 16.12.2024 issued by the Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation, Dibrugarh. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that prior to the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2024, the Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation issued another order on 30.11.2024, whereby the petitioner was entrusted with the duties for issuance of Occupancy Certificate and Land sale and building construction certificate, so far relating to ward No.6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22. Along with the petitioner one Suman Kalita, Urban Technical Officer was entrusted with discharge of similar duty in relation to Ward No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 & 14 and one Masud Ahmed, Urban Technical Officer was entrusted with the similar work relating to ward No.16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21. 4. However, according to the petitioner, by way of impugned order dated 16.12.2024, though different tasks were assigned to different persons, the petitioner’s name did not find place in the said Page No.# 3/4 work allotment order and therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved. The grievance of the petitioner is also to the effect that in the order dated 30.11.2024, the petitioner’s designation was shown as Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas, he is an Executive Engineer. His further grievance is that similar works were entrusted to officers junior to him and therefore, he will have to sit idle and will be left with no work. 5. From the order dated 30.11.2024, what is discernible is that the Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation, in the interest of Public Service and Smooth Functioning of the Office of the Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation, entrusted the duty for issuance of occupancy certificate and land sale and building construction permission as per table detailed in the said order dated 30.11.2024 upon some engineers. The petitioner along with two other officers, as recorded hereinabove, were entrusted with land sale and building construction permission, however, they were entrusted with different wards. 6. The order dated 16.12.2024 is an order which relates to streamlining and improving performance of various schemes/works under Dibrugarh Municipal Corporation and four officers were assigned different tasks mentioned in the detailed table, which is part of the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2024. Such order, in the considered opinion is a general order, inasmuch as the aforesaid order clearly stipulates that the responsibilities outlined in the said communication dated 16.12.2024 are not exhaustive and represent only a part of broader scope of work to be supervised and these officers are to report their day to day work to the Executive Officer on a regular Page No.# 4/4 basis. Such communication nowhere reflects that this has been issued in supersession of earlier order dated 30.11.2024. 7. When the competent authority has issued certain executive order for streamlining the works, such order can’t be interfered in a writ proceeding until and unless, it is shown that by way of such work distribution, the rank and status of the employee is changed. The petitioner could not show violation of any of his legal or constitutional right by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.11.2024. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is having no vested right to seek any specific work in the manner he has claimed. 9. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to represent his grievance before the Chief Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipal Board and in the event any such representation is made, same by considered by the Chief Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipal Board, as per law as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of four weeks from receipt of such representation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant