Ghanashyam Das vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

Heard Ms. K Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N Goswami , the learned State counsel for all the respondents.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as Night Chowkidar by the District Social Welfare Officer, Shantipur, Nalbari (respondent

No.3) vide office order dated 13.02.1996 (Annexure-4). The said appointment or engagement was pursuant to the communication made by the

Director of Social Welfare Department (respondent No.2) on 05.02.1996 (Annexure-3). In terms of his appointment order, the petitioner was engaged

as casual employee on a fixed consolidated pay of Rs.900/- per month. While he continued as such, his salary w.e.f. 01.01.2003 was however

stopped. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 through the respondent No. 3 on 02.07.2011 (Annexure-5)

requesting release of his salary, which was unpaid to him since 01.01.2003. However, as he received no positive response, the petitioner is before this

Court.

Appearing for the petitioner, Ms. K Devi, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged as Night Chowkidar on a fixed consolidated pay

of Rs.900/- per month, pursuant to the approval of the respondent No.2 and despite him rendering his service till date, he has not been paid his salary

w.e.f. 01.01.2003 for reasons best known to the respondents. She further submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 22 years of service as on

date and therefore, he is also eligible to be considered for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure-6), issued

by the Finance (EC-II) Department, Government of Assam as a onetime measure. Under the circumstances, she submits that a direction may be

issued to the respondent authorities to release the unpaid salary of the petitioner and at the same time to regularize his service in terms of the OM

dated 27.06.2013 and other relevant guidelines.

Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that instructions are still awaited from the respondent authorities

and therefore, sometime may be granted to respond to the writ petition.

It is seen that the writ petition was moved as early as on 24.05.2017, wherein notice of motion was issued, returnable by 4(four) weeks. However,

till date, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, considering the nature of the grievances projected by

the writ petitioner, I am of the considered view that the respondents should consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner. Though the

petitioner had earlier filed his representation, let a fresh representation be filed by him.

Accordingly, the writ petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 through the respondent No.3 by indicating his claim for

arrear salaries which remain unpaid to him since 01.01.2003 and also the claim for regularization in view of the long service rendered by him within a

period of 10 days from today. On receiving the representation, the respondent No.3 shall immediately convey the same to the respondent No.2, who

shall take into consideration the entire grievances projected by the writ petitioner and thereafter, dispose the representation with a speaking order,

within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the same. A copy of the order to be passed shall also be given to the petitioner. If it is

found that the petitioner is entitled to his arrear salaries w.e.f. 01.01.2003, the same shall be disbursed to him without any delay.

If the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent No.2, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court again.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petitioner stands disposed of.