Nikumoni Saikia vs State Of Assam And Ors

Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam,

appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. G. Baishya, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, Assam, appearing for the respondent

No.3.

This is a writ appeal filed against the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4967/2020, whereby the said writ

petition was dismissed.

The case of the petitioner/writ appellant was that she was working in Social Welfare Department and had retired from service on 31.01.2020 as

Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). She was promoted to the said post on 27.10.2014 but in the writ petition she had raised a claim that since

her juniors were promoted to the said post in the year 2006, she is also liable to be promoted in the year 2006. The writ petition was dismissed by the

learned Single Judge not only because of the inordinate delay in the writ petition but also for the reasons that any interference at this belated stage

would disturb the seniority in the Department, who are not before the Court. It was stated as under:-

“On the facts above, this Court is of the clear view that the writ petition requires to be dismissed summarily. It is not only that there has

been inordinate delay in approaching this Court, also, in the event the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed, the same would amount to

turning back the clock to the year 2006, when during the interregnum period between 2006 and her promotion in the year 2014, many

officers must have been promoted to the post of CDPO. If the petitioner is granted benefit of promotion as CDPO with effect from

20.01.2006, the same would only result in disturbing settled position and rights of others, who are not before this Court.

On the above, the writ petition does not merit any consideration and the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.â€​

Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellant has given a statement before this Court that subsequent to dismissal of the afore mentioned

writ petition, he has been apprised by the petitioner/writ appellant that she had in fact earlier approached this Court in a writ petition, where there was

certain orders in her favour, and as these facts were not stated before this Court and hence this Court may hear the matter afresh, as these facts

were not stated before the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to file a review petition

on the basis of the new facts which have subsequently came to light.

In view of the above statement of Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellant, the writ appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty

to the petitioner/writ appellant to prefer a review petition, if so advised.