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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Tafika Manowara Rahman W/o Mainul Haque – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 8939 of 2019
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Kalita, R. Goswami, U. Bhattacharyya, R. Devi
For the Respondents: S.M. Baruah, D. Goswami

The court determined that a petitioner cannot claim seniority or promote based on service from a distinct establishment due to separate seniority rules.

Headnote:(A) Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 - Writ petition for promotion based on claimed seniority - Petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds, with subsequent service records considered - Distinct establishments having separate seniority lists - No retrospective promotion granted due to distinct establishment rules. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 13)

(B) Promotion - Entitlement based on seniority determination - Transfer conditions do not allow for prior seniority - Service record and proper documentation critical for establishing claims for promotion. (Paras 10, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought promotion to Senior Assistant with retrospective effect from the date of juniors, arguing her services should count from her earlier appointment in a different establishment. The application was denied on grounds of separate seniority lists and transfer conditions.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner not entitled to retrospective seniority as the establishments are distinct with separate gradation lists; her claim lacks merit based on the transfer stipulations.

Issues: Whether prior service in a separate establishment counts towards seniority in a different establishment; whether transparency in seniority claims was followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a petitioner cannot carry over seniority from a different establishment if the transfer was based on conditions that explicitly negate such a claim, underscoring the independence of each establishment's seniority system.

Result: Petition dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for promotion (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of petitioner's employment (Para 3)
3. arguments from both parties regarding seniority (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's analysis on distinct establishments (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's consideration of service reckoning and seniority (Para 9 , 11 , 12)
6. final determination on seniority and claims (Para 10 , 13)
7. judgment dismissal with no cost order (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. S.M. Baruah, learned counsel representing respondent No. 7.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to promote her to the post of Senior Assistant with retrospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. the date of the promotion of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 with consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner, herein, was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Dhansiri Project Division (Irrigation), Udalguri (respondent No. 5) against a leave vacancy. The application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, in pursuance to the death of her father, who was working as a Head Assistant in the establishment of the respondent No. 5, was approved by the Government in the Irrigation Department and the same was communicated to the respondent No. 5 vide communication dated 02-04-1996. Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 13-05-1996 proceed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground against the post of LDA with prospective effect. The appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground against the vacant post available in the establishment of the respondent No. 5 was put to challenge by one Bibekananda Das before this Court by way of instituting writ petition being C.R. No. 2251/1996. This Court while issuing notice in the matter stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 13-05-1996. Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 30-05-1996 proceeded to cancel the appointment effected in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 13-05-1996. Subsequently, the writ petition being C.R. No. 2251/1996 being dismissed, the respondent No. 5 proceeded vide order dated 02-04-1998 to appoint the petitioner as LDA against the vacant post available in his establishment with prospective effect. The petitioner accordingly joined her services. The services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. the year 1995 in pursuance to the order dated 23-05-1995 not being reckoned for the purpose of fixation of her seniority in the establishment of respondent No. 5, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1933/2001. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02-11-2006 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation submitted in the matter by the petitioner, herein, within the time-frame prescribed.

As the matter was pending consideration of the grievance raised by the petitioner in her representation in terms of the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02-12-2006, the petitioner made a request before the competent authority for her transfer to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Division (Irrigation), Mangaldai, i.e. the respondent No. 4 against an available vacancy. The application of the petitioner was considered and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam vide order dated 19-08-2005 proceeded to transfer the petitioner to the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Division (Irrigation), Mangaldai, on her own request. The said transfer order was subject to the condition that the petitioner would not claim any transfer TA/DA for the purpose and her

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