DEEPIKA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for petitioner. Also, heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents in the Public Works Department.

(2.) The petitioner had instituted the present proceedings praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to upgrade/promote her to the post of LDA/Typist in the manner such promotion was effected in respect of a similarly situated employee Shri Diganta Sarma.

(3.) The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 24/7/1992 in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD, PCC Division, Guwahati. The case of the petitioner for regularization of her services was considered in terms of a policy decision of the Government to regularize the services of Muster Roll Worker/Work Charge Employees engaged prior to 1/4/1993 and who were working as of 2005 in their respective establishment. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner being considered, approval was granted by the competent authority vide communication dtd. 30/9/2005 to regularize the services of the petitioner. The Respondent No. 4, vide his order dtd. 5/10/2005 proceeded to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the approval as granted vide the said communication dtd. 30/9/2005. The petitioner thereafter continued to serve in the establishment in such capacity till the date of institution of the present proceedings. It is to be noted that the petitioner was so regularized in her services by creating post personal to her. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner although was regularized in her service against a Grade-IV post, however, her service was all along utilized for works of clerical nature. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a process initiated for upgrading the services of qualified Grade-IV employees to the post of LDA working in the establishment of the respondent no. 4. However, ignoring the case of the petitioner, one Diganta Sarma who was contended to be junior to the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of LDA-cum-Typist vide issuance of an order dtd. 20/1/2011. The petitioner, further contended that her case for such promotion/upgradation was, placed before the Government by the Divisional authorities, however, the said process so initiated was not taken to its logical conclusion. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.