SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Juri Baruah W/o Kabin Choudhury - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7474 of 2023
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.K. Dutta, B. Purkayastha
For the Respondent: S.K. Medhi

Irregular appointments do not confer rights to service regularization or pension benefits; res judicata bars relitigation of previously adjudicated claims.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Petition challenging termination from service and seeking regularization/voluntary retirement - Petitioner was appointed on an adhoc basis without following proper procedure and denied termination rights - Long service claimed but still rejection based on irregularity upheld. (Paras 2, 4, 20)

(B) Res Judicata - Issue of regularization raised in prior litigation was adjudicated and cannot be relitigated - Consistent principle that similar issues in separate petitions are precluded post-judgment. (Paras 17, 18)

(C) Service and Pension Rights - Adhoc service does not meet criteria for regularization or pension entitlement - Legal rights enumerated under Assam Service (Pension) Rules not fulfilled; voluntary retirement requires 20 years of service. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Music Teacher in 1994, claimed regularization of her service after continuous employment. Her salary was stopped without a proper hearing, and she was later informed of her termination. Previous cases involving similarly situated teachers had different outcomes resulting in regularization.

Findings of Court:
The court found that while the petitioner rendered long service, her appointment was irregular, and thus she had no right to regularization or retirement benefits, which were contingent on legal employment conditions.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the termination, the possibility of regularization of the petitioner's service, and the applicability of previous case outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that irregular appointment limits entitlement to claims for regularization and benefits; the principles established in prior decisions were binding and appropriately applied in assessing claims.

Result: Petition disposed of without relief; liberty granted to seek consideration of special provisions for hardship exceptions.

Table of Content
1. regularization process and petitioner’s appointment history. (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondents' opposition to petitioner's claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. petitioner's arguments for regularization. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's reasoning on res judicata and service statutes. (Para 8 , 12)
5. arguments regarding claims for service regularization. (Para 10 , 13)
6. res judicata enforcing finality of previous decisions. (Para 18 , 19)
7. eligibility for pension and voluntary retirement. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. court's directive on seeking governor's consideration. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1-3, Ms. M. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned standing counsel, Accountant General (AG) Assam, respondent No.5 and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.6.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Smt. Juri Baruah, has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for quashing the communication dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-8), issued by the respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume her service as Music Teacher of Bani Kanta Memorial H.S. School, Guwahati, by recalling the order of rejection of regularization of service of the petitioner dated 05.11.2012, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, or to pass similar order in respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No.3674/2011, dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure-10A), or alternatively to direct the respondents to grant voluntary retirement/compulsory retirement to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2012 by moulding the order dated 05.11.2012 and to pay the petitioner GPF, GIS, leave salary, gratuity, commutation of pension, MACPS/ACPS, arrear salary, arrear pension, etc. within a specific period.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are briefly stated as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as Music Teacher vide order, dated 21.06.1994, by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and posted her at Mirza Girls’ High School and she joined as such on 30.06.1994. Thereafter, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide order dated 01.07.1994 transferred and posted her as Music Teacher at Bani Kanta Memorial H.S. School, Rehabari, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup(M).

The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the State respondents had initiated a process for regularization in the year 1996 and conducted interview. But, the said process could not be brought to its logical conclusion. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure-10A) in WP(C) No. 3674/2011, in respect of one Ranjita Sharma alias Ranjita Devi, who was the petitioner in the said writ proceeding, who is also included in the list of 22 numbers of of Music Teachers, had directed the State respondents to consider the case of regularization of service of the said petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry and thereafter, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure-10B) has regularized the service of the petitioner of the aforementioned writ petition. But, in case of the present petitioner, the Director of Secondary Education vide order dated 05.11.2012 (Annexure-3A), stopped the salary of the petitioner without conducting any hearing to the petitioner and she has neither been terminated from service in accordance with law nor any departmental proceeding has been conducted against her nor show-cause notice has been issued to her giving any opportunity to place her defense. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing one writ petition, being WP(C) No.1004/2013 and this Court vide order dated 20.02.2018 was pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner.

Accord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top