Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 426
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Bakul Chandra Hazarika S/o Shri Mahita Chandra Hazarika – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1152 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Appointment Issues
Headnote
(B) Employment Law - Seniority and benefit calculation - The court noted that employees who report for duty but are not allotted tasks cannot be denied salary for the non-allocated period - The date of appointment is fundamental for benefits under pension schemes and seniority. (Paras 12, 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected for a post but was delayed in appointment due to juniors being favored and sought recognition of his service since 01.09.2003, citing previous court orders ensuring his rightful position.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that the petitioner’s appointment date be treated as 01.09.2003, awarding all benefits accordingly, acknowledging that the refusal to assign duty constituted grounds for salary claims.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s effective date of appointment should be recognized as 01.09.2003, and the implications for service benefits and seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: Reporting for duty without being allocated tasks does not nullify salary claims; effective dates for appointments should align with judicial determinations for redress in employment disputes.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
For the Appellant : R.P. Sarmah
For the Respondent: R. Dhar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointment issues and background details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on petitioner's entitlement and reporting for duty. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. court's acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights and rulings. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's decision on seniority and consequential benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final disposal of the writ petition. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/department.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the Social & Welfare department, Government of Assam, had floated an advertisement for the post of LDA-cum-Typist. Although a select list was prepared pursuant to the selection process, and the petitioner had been placed at Sl. No. 11 of the select list, persons below the petitioner in the select list had been appointed, and the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 5688/2001. By the order dated 29.05.2003, this Court had held that the only conceivable way in which the wrong done to the petitioner can be remedied was by issuing an appropriate direction to forthwith appoint the petitioner in the post of LDA in the office of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), ICDS Project, Juria, Nagaon. This Court was also of the view that if it was possible to accommodate the appointment of the petitioner against a vacant post, then the person who had been placed lower in the select list but came to be appointed need not be disturbed. Any disturbance in the service of such a person placed lower only would arise to accommodate the petitioner.
3. By the order dated 28.08.2003, the Director of Social Welfare had terminated the service of one of the persons who was situated lower in merit to accommodate the petitioner herein in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Binakandi ICDS Nagaon. It is the case of the petitioner that by the joining report dated 01.09.2003, the petitioner had joined before the CDPO, Binakandi ICDS Project, Nagaon.
4. A review petition was then filed by one of the persons who had been dislodged from service to accommodate another person who was similarly situated as the petitioner. Notice in Review Petition No. 88/2003 was issued on 11.09.2003 with an observation that the operation of the impugned judgment & order dated 29.05.2003 would remain suspended and any order passed by the authority on 28.08.2003 in furtherance of the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5688/2001 would remain suspended, if the same had not been implemented in the meantime. Taking a cue from the order passed in the review petition, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, had passed an order dated 14.10.2003, directing the CDPO, ICDS Project Binakandi, along with the CDPO, ICDS Project Barhampur, to maintain the status quo by allowing the two persons lower in merit appointed before the petitioner to continue in service. By a communication dated 27.10.2003, the Divisional Programme Officer (DPO), ICDS Nagaon, informed the Director that the petitioner and another person had already joined the office of the concerned ICDS Projects. However, due to the public disturbance, they were not attending their Project Office but were present in the office of the Divisional Programme Officer, ICDS at Nagaon without being allowed to sign the attendance register.
5. By the order dated 01.02.2005, this Court had dismissed Review Petition No. 88/2003, and by a specific order passed in WP(C) No. 558/2004, which was preferred by the present petitioner, the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Director of Social Welfare was set aside and quashed. Such being the position, the writ petitioner herein, on the dismissal of the review petition and in compliance with the order dated 01.02.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 558/2004 w
