AMARJIT BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the Writ Appeals involves same question of facts and law, the Writ Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned Counsel representing the appellants in both the Appeals. Also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel for the Co-Operative Department representing the respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. J. Barman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Counsel representing the respondents Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Government of Assam representing the respondent No.5.

(3.) These intra-Court Appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment and order dtd. 25/4/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2971/2012 (against which the Writ Appeal No.05/2022 has been preferred) and WP(C) No.2047/2017 (against which the Writ Appeal No.168/2019 has been preferred) respectively, along with WP(C) No.2556/2012, WP(C) No.2622/2013 and WP(C) No.812/2013, whereby the prayer of the petitioners (present appellants) for a direction to the State respondents for payment of monthly salary and other emoluments, as revised from time to time and to continue to provide grant-in-aid has been rejected by holding that the petitioners being employees of the Assam State Cooperative Union (in short 'the ASCU'), which is a registered Cooperative Society would not be entitled to a writ in the nature of Mandamus against the State Government. The learned Single Judge has held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the State respondent and it would not be appropriate to issue Mandamus upon the State of Assam.