Writ Appeal No. 511 of 2005. Case: Mukut Ch. Borah Vs Shafiqur Rahman Choudhury and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 511 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.C. Deka and Devojit Goswami, Advs. and For Respondents: M. Bhuvan, P. Hazarika, B.P. Bora, A.C. Bora and P.K. Musahary, Advs. |
| Judges | D. Biswas and Anima Hazarika, JJ. |
| Issue | Assam Municipal Act, 1956 - Sections 50, 209, 298, 299 |
| Citation | 2006 (2) GLR 699, 2006 (1) GLT 579 |
| Judgement Date | December 23, 2005 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
D. Biswas, J.
1. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No. 6 in the W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2003, has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge ruling, inter alia, that the appellant has no legal right to hold the post of Head Assistant by virtue of the order passed by the Municipal Board by way of review recalling the order of compulsory retirement as the powers of review are not available to the Board under the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.
2. The appellant was working as Head Assistant of Nagaon Municipal Board. He was placed under suspension by the Executive Officer by an order passed on 24.4.1997. Thereafter, by the order dated 17.6.1997, the Executive Officer of the Board compulsorily retired him from service. The order of compulsory retirement reads as follows:
Perused all the service records and other relevant records relating to the service of Shri Mukut Chandra Bora, Head Asstt. (under suspension), Nagaon Municipal Board. Shri Bora has completed 29 years of service. After perusal of all the records and facts, I am satisfied that it is on public interest that Shri Mukut Ch. Bora be sent on compulsory retirement. Accordingly Sri Mukut Ch. Bora is directed to be sent on compulsory retirement. This decision is not related to any disciplinary proceedings pending against him at this time. The period of his suspension given vide order No. 1-12/97-98/270-74 dated 28.4.1997 shall be treated as on duty. He will be entitled to all benefits of retirement as per rule.
3. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the appellant in Civil Rule No. 2884 of 1997, The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2003. Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2001 was preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the writ appeal, elected representatives assumed charge of the affairs of the Municipal Board. Thereafter, the Board by Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 dated 12.11.2001 reinstated the appellant in service and rejected the prayer of the Sim Safiqur Rahman Choudhury (respondent No. 1) to grant him senior position with effect from the date of extension of service of another employee, namely, Shri Atul Ch. Baruah. On such resolutions having been passed, the appellant did not press, the Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2001 which stood dismissed on 10.9.2002. The Resolution Nos. 3 and 4 dated 12.11.2001 read as follows:
Resolution No. 3:
The former Head Assistant of the Board (sent on Compulsory retirement) Sri Mukut Ch. Bora's letter dated 2.11.2001 addressed to the Chairman has been placed in the meeting for discussion. Said Sri Bora, in his petition mentioned that in serving for a period of about 29 years in the Board in different capacities, he was promoted to the post of Head Assistant and while he was in that post he was placed under suspension by the then Executive Officer of the Board and subsequently sent on compulsory retirement illegally. Sri Bora moved the Hon'ble High Court against that illegal order of compulsory retirement and praying for his reinstatement and the said Writ Appeal petition is under consideration of the Hon'ble High Court and stand undisposed of. Sri Bora also mentioned in his petition that previously Sri Atul Chandra Boruah and Sri Safiqur Rahman Choudhury, both employees of the Board were removed from their services and subsequently reinstated in their services while their petitions challenging the legality of their dismissal order was pending in the Court for disposal which is precedence. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial