PRABIN HENSUA Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-1994-8-6
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 08,1994

Prabin Hensua Appellant
VERSUS
Assam State Electricity Board And Ors. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

J.N. Sarma, J. - (1.)THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to quash the order dated 3.5.94 giving consequential benefits to the Petitioner with a further prayer to regularise the service of the Petitioner in terms of the Circular of April, 1987.
The brief facts are as follows:

(2.)THAT the Petitioner read upto Class IX and belongs to Ahom community which is recognised as Other Backward Classes by the Govt. of Assam. That the Petitioner joined the service of Respondent Board on 1.8.88, as Sahayak in the T & T Division North Lakhimpur. The initial appointment of the Petitioner was for 87 days but it as continued by a series of orders and the last order was made on 28.4.94. appointing him upto 14.7.94. It was stated in the orders that these are all officiating arrangements which is purely temporary and it can be terminated at any time Without assigning any reason thereof. Thereafter on 3.11.94 the following order was issued i.e. Office order No. 489:
In pursuation of the Project Manager T & T, Gauhati Memo No. ASEB/PM/TT/Estt -118/Pt. IV/154 (a) dated 26.4.94 received on 2.5.94 intimation that any officiating engagement (which has been banned by the Chairman, AHEB) will be considered, as an act of violation of the Chairman Order. Hence all officiating engagement made by this Division since July/87 in the interest of the Board's work against sanctioned but vacant post in anticipation of approval are hereby discontinued with effect from 3.5.94 (AN).

Hence, this writ application.

An affidavit -in -opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents where in it has been stated that the circular dated April/87 has already been superseded, and by holding officiating appointments the Petitioner does not acquire any right and, that the termination of the Petitioner is a termination simpliciter. One very important thing which must be considered in this case is that in paragraph 4 of the writ application it has been stated inter -alia as follows: That, the Petitioner's continuous service as Sahayak runs to about 6 years from 1.8.88 to 3.5.94. The engagement was continuous although the orders show a break of 2/3 days between two spells of appointment. The services of the Petitioner were taken on those break days also but he was not paid for those days.

(3.)THIS part of the statement that the service of the Petitioner were taken on the break days also but he was not paid for those days have not been controverted in the affidavit -opposition. So relying on the case of Naseem Banu v. State Uttar Pradesh AIR 1993 SC page 2592, it must be held that part of the statement have boon admitted by the Respondents. So let us proceed on the basis that the service of the Petitioner is continuous from 1.8.88 and it continued up to 3.5.94 and there was no break in service though the orders show break in service for 2 to 3 days.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.