Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010231522025 2026:GAU-AS:253 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6147/2025 REBA KANTA DAS AND 6 ORS SON OF LABODAR DAS, NEAR NAMGHAR, CHAKARI GAON, TULASHI MUKH, P.O. TULASHIMUKH, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, 782101 2: SHRI JANESWAR GOHAIN RESIDENT OF NAMRUP THERMAL PROJECT 102 NO- NELAMI GRANT P.O. NAMRUP THERMAL POWER STATION DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 786622 3: SHRI DHARMENDRA DAS SON OF SAMBHURAM DAS RESIDENT OF T/V/9 SF-2 NARENGI ASEB COLONY NARENGI MILITARY AREA (PART) GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 781026 4: SHRI GAJEN GOGOI SON OF TLESWAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF ASEB BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR P.O. GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 781001 5: SHRI BIPUL CHANDRA SAIKIA SON OF DAYA RAM SAIKIA RESIDENT OF HAIBORGAON Page No.# 2/5 PURANI GUDAM GAON P.O. PURANIGUDAM DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 782141 6: SHRI JYOTISH CHANDRA BORAH SON OF MADHAB BORA RESIDENT OF POWER HOUSE (PART) KAHILIPARA P.O. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 781019 7: SHHRI GOPI KANTA BARMAN SON OF MADHAB CHANDRA BARMAN RESIDENT OF TYPE V ASEB COMPLEX MOTHER TERESA ROAD ASEB COLONY NARENGI MILITARY AREA (PART) GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 78102 VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, 781001 2:THE ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 Page No.# 3/5 4:MANAGING DIRECTOR AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 5:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 6:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGGER (HRA) AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 7:THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 8:THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate : Mr. R. K. Mahanta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. P. Pathak, SC, APDCL : Ms. K. Phukan, SC, AEGCL Page No.# 4/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 07.01.2026 Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. K. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned standing counsel of the APDCL appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7. I have also heard Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioners from their initial date of appointment i.e. in the year 1990 and further grant all service benefits as admissible under the Rules including the annual increment and revision of pay as provided to other regular employees from the date of the initial appointment. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the Petitioners herein were appointed sometime in the year 1990. Thereupon, it is an admitted fact that in the year 1997, the services of the Petitioners were regularized as would be apparent from the very representations which have been filed by the Petitioners enclosed as Annexures G and H to the writ petition. It is further seen that after the regularization in the year 1997, the Petitioners approached the Respondent Authorities in the year 2024 and 2025 seeking that their regularization should have been w.e.f. the date of Page No.# 5/5 their initial appointment and not from the date on which they were regularized to the services under APDCL and AEGCL Authorities. 4. It is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioners have approached this Court after 28 years from the date of their regularization seeking that their regularization should be given effect from the initial date of appointment. It is a classic case of delay and laches for which this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant