Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6755 (GAU)

DIPAK CHAKRABORTY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.

WP(C)/2355/2017 · 2025-05-20

Suman Shyam

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020262017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2355/2017 DIPAK CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. UPENDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, GOKUL DAS COMPLEX, OPPOSITE ASEB SILCHAR SUB-DIVISION-II, HAILAKANDI ROAD, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GHY.-06. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PHE WATER ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY-781036. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE SILCHAR DIVISION NO.-1 SILCHAR. 5:SUSHOVAN ROY JUNIOR ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Page No.# 2/3 PHE SILCHAR DIVISION NO-1 SILCHAR. 6:FARIDUL HOQUE LASKAR JUNIOR ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE SILCHAR DIVISION NO-1 SILCHAR. 7:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KHANAPARA DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO). PIN-8102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H GOGOI, MR.B K DAS,MRS M ABDULLAH P Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APSC, GA, ASSAM,MR.P N GOSWAMI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 21/05/2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent no. 1; Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Ms. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, appearing for the respondent no. 7. None has appeared for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the PHE Department, Assam, way back on 26/11/1988. Accordingly, he joined service on 06/12/1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that on completion of 8 (eight) years of service, he was entitled to be designated as a Senior Grade Junior Engineer and also extended the benefit of pay scale for Senior Grade cadre. However, notwithstanding such entitlement under the Rules, no such benefit has been given to the petitioner although persons junior to him in the gradation list of Junior Engineer, published on 14/09/2012 i.e. the respondent nos. 5 & 6 herein, had been conferred with such benefit. Page No.# 3/3 The petitioner had submitted representation dated 10/09/2015 before the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Chief Engineer, PHE (Water), Assam, ventilating his grievance in the matter. However, since no action was taken on such representation, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court. This writ petition was instituted in the year 2017. However, even after the lapse of nearly 8(eight) years, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the PHE Department, Assam. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department, Assam, submits that despite several communications issued to the authorities, no instruction has been received till today. On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any provision in the Rules, which would permit that Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Under the circumstances, the only recourse left open for this Court is to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the authorities ventilating his grievance in the matter. As such, this writ petition is being disposed of by granting 4 (four) weeks’ time to the petitioner, with effect from today, to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 by enclosing a certified copy of this order, ventilating his grievance in the matter. If such a representation is submitted within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order. Whatever be the outcome of the process, the same shall be communicated to the writ petitioner in writing. If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it would be open for him to seek remedy before the Court of law once again as per law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant