WP(C)/5069/2026 of ANUP KUMAR THAOSEN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 15 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 16.09.2026

Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while Mr. D. Thaosen, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. [2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Pay Band 2 and Grade Pay of Rs.2,200/- along with admissible allowances vide Order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure – 4), the said appointment order was preceded by a due selection process undertaken by the respondent authorities and also with the approval of the Finance Department as well as the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council. The petitioner in terms of his appointment order joined the post but the respondent authorities concerned vide Office Order dated 17.06.2026 released him from service on 18.06.2026. In the said Order it was indicated that the Order was issued in compliance with the instructions received from the Autonomous Council. [4.] Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the Communication dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure – 7) submits that all that is written in the said Communication is that the services of the petitioner is no longer required by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council. [5.] Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was re-called to join back in his duty vide Communication dated 24.06.2026 but again by another Communication dated 26.06.2026 of the Principal Secretary, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council to the District Social Welfare Officer, Dima Hasao, Haflong, it was communicated that the services of the petitioner is no longer required by the authority in the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved with in the manner in which his service has been discontinued and, thereafter, re-called back to join service and subsequently again released from his service, is before this Court. [6.] Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been appointed with the due approval of the competent authority and after undergoing the rigors of selection could not have been released from service in such a manner. [7.] From the impugned Communications, the learned counsel submits that it only shows that the authorities concerned has passed the order and recalled the same at their whims and fancies, and not by following any procedure acceptable in law. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Communication releasing him from the service should be set aside. [8.] At this stage, Mr. D. Thaosen, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council submits that as per the instructions received by him, it has been decided to recall the release of the petitioner and to ask him to join back in service. He submits the a communication to this effect has been made by the Joint Secretary, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council to the District Social Welfare Officer, Dima Hasao, Haflong on 05.09.2026. He, further, submits that the District Social Welfare Officer in turn will communicate the same to the CDPO concerned and the CDPO will issue necessary orders asking the petitioner to join back into the service. In support of his submission, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the Communication dated 05.09.2026, the same is kept on record and marked as “X” for identification. [9.] Having regard to the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to join back into service in terms of the Communication dated 05.09.2026 issued by the Joint Secretary, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council to the District Social Welfare Officer, Dima Hasao, Haflong. [10.] As regards the claim for the unpaid dues of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and also by taking into account the fact that it is the said authorities had disallowed the petitioner from continuing in his post. It is also further provided that no further coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner, save and except in accordance with law. [11.] The writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant