ABU HYAT Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/ writ petitioner's father was a Muster Roll labour in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Goalpara. Unfortunately the appellant's father died while working as Muster Roll labourer. By order dated January 4, 1997 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division. Goalpara (Annexure-3) the petitioner was appointed as Muster Roll Labourer on casual basis, it is mentioned in the order that he was appointed on compassionate ground due to expiry of his father. This appointment was initially for a period of three months. By another order dated April 3, 1997 the services of the appellant as Muster Roll Labour was extended until further orders. However, by an order dated August 25, 1997 (Annexure-6) the appellant's service was terminated on the ground that his appointment initially was unlawful during the ban period. The order reads as under: In pursuance of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam's Order No. CE/ADI (II) 33/ 2000/4 dt. Guwahati, the 19th Aug/2000, the following work-charged Muster Roll Labourer as appointed unlawfully i. e. during 'Ban period' (on or after April 1, 1993) is hereby terminated with immediate effect.

(2.) This order was made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned single Judge vide order dated November 9, 2000 dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge non suited the writ petitioner on the basis of a judgment of this Court reported as Achyut Ch. Pathak v. State of Assam 2000 1 Gauhati LT 243. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge has filed the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. M. Bujarbaruah, learned Govt. advocate for the respondent State.