Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010278992025 2026:GAU-AS:1295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7308/2025 OBEDUL HOQUE S/O- LATE WAHIDUR RAHMAN, R/O-VILL- GANGAPUKHURI,P.O.- SANTIPUKHURIP.S.- SIPAJHARDIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784144 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THEBRGOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH ANDBRF.W. DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (M) CUM SPO NV BDCP ASSAM CHRISTIANBASTI GUWAHATI 781005 4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES DARRANG P.O. MANGALDOI P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 5:DIST. MALARIA OFFICER Page No.# 2/4 DARRANG MANGALDOI P.O. MANGALDOI P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 6:S.D.M. AND H.O. KHOIRABARI BPHC UDALGURI BTAD P.O. KHOIRABARI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM PIN 78452 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Hussain Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. D Upamanyu, Standing Counsel Health and Family Welfare Deptt. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 02.02.2026 Heard Mr. M Hossain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D Upamanyu, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Assam. Page No.# 3/4 2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s name was not included in the list of Seasonal DDT Spray Worker by the Joint Director of Health Services when the communication was issued by the Joint Director of Health Services(M)-cum-SPO, NVBDCP, Assam, dated 09.04.2024 and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The materials on record and, more particularly, the representation dated 30.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner enclosed as Annexure-7 clearly show that the petitioner claimed that he had worked for 20 years from 1986 to 2005 in DDT Spraying Work under the Malaria Department and, therefore, his name should also have been sent. 4. This Court, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to what benefit the petitioner would get if his name is forwarded in terms with the communication dated 09.04.2024 and as such, vide an order dated 21.01.2026 granted time to the petitioner to obtain instruction(s). 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per instructions received from the petitioner those persons whose names would be sent they would be engaged in some other work. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that however no benefit till date has been granted to those persons whose names have been sent. 6. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage, taking into account that there is no deprivation of the petitioner’s right and further nothing could also be shown in support of the petitioner’s claim. 7. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 8. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner in the circumstance when similarly situated persons like the petitioner are granted the benefits on the basis of the communication dated 09.04.2024. JUDGE Comparing Assistant