Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5980/2024 of DIPAK KUMAR DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 6 August 2026
GAHC010237782024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5980/2024 DIPAK KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE SADANANDA DAS, RESIDENT OF NO.2 BILAR TARI HATI, BARPETA, P.O.- BARPETA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010237782024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5980/2024
DIPAK KUMAR DAS
SON OF LATE SADANANDA DAS, RESIDENT OF NO.2 BILAR TARI HATI, BARPETA, P.O.- BARPETA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ASSAM
SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI- 781003
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BARPETA WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
BARPET
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K KOTOKY, MR. N D SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 07.08.2026
Heard Mr. D.K. Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is for consideration of his appointment as Muster Roll Worker in the Water Resources Department, Government of Assam.
3. The petitioner was initially engaged as Muster Roll Labourer in the Lower Assam Investigation Division, Barpeta Road, Barpeta under the Water Resources Department. After serving for a period of 3 (three) months, he was disengaged in the month of October, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department seeking his re-engagement. The matter was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Lower Assam Investigation Division for necessary action. However, due to the ban on fresh appointment imposed by the Government with effect from 01.04.1993, no action could be taken.
4. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his case, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 2984/2009, which was disposed of by order dated 27.07.2009, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to take a decision regarding the petitioner's re-engagement and to communicate the same to him.
5. Pursuant to the said order, the Executive Engineer, Lower Assam Investigation Division, Water Resources Department, passed an order dated 27.04.2010 stating that the petitioner's re-engagement could not be considered due to the ban on fresh appointment imposed with effect from 01.04.1993 without prior approval of the Finance (SIU) Department, Government of Assam. However, it is stated that the case of the petitioner would be considered as per the existing rules and procedure as and when the ban on fresh appointment is lifted by the Government.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ban on fresh appointment has already been lifted as fresh appointments have been made by the State Government. More so, his case was one of re-engagement and not a fresh appointment. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that no material has been placed on record to show that the ban on fresh appointment had been lifted and that consideration of the petitioner's case would amount to a fresh appointment.
7. Upon hearing the parties, this Court noticed that although it is not disputed that the petitioner had earlier served as Muster Roll Labourer and was disengaged in October, 1994, no material has been produced to establish that the ban on fresh appointment imposed by the Government has been lifted. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no positive direction for re- engagement could be issued.
8. However, considering that the petitioner has been pursuing his claim for re-engagement for many years, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement as Muster Roll Worker, if the ban on fresh appointment is lifted and, if not, as and when the ban on fresh appointment is lifted by the State Government, in accordance with law, by relaxing the age of the petitioner, if necessary.
9. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant