REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Paresh Chandra Deka Appellant

V/S

STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TILOKCHAND AND MOTICHAND VS. H B MUNSHI [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
R S MAKASHI VS. I M MENON [REFERRED TO]
K R MUDGAL VS. R P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES OFFICERS WELFARE COUNCIL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S VINOD KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VISHNU PANVALKAR VS. BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD VS. D K VIJAY [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. PAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARSEM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA VS. GOVT OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN MEENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
U P POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. RAJESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
S V JOSHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BHOGESWAR SAIKIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS BHANKHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S. PANNEER SELVAM AND ORS. VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
EQUALITY FORUM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Y. Doley, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Ms. V.L. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Mr. T. Doley, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 20 and 24. Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 9, 12, 21, 22 and 23. Mr. D.K. Das, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.25 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 26.

(2.) The brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer (AE) in the Irrigation Department and after working for about 2 years he was appointed as AE in the Public Works Departments (PWD) on 21.1.1988. Thereafter, on 03.07.2000, he was promoted to the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE). The petitioner No.2 was appointed as AE on 05.10.1987 under regulation for 4(d) of Assam Public Service Commission Regulation (Regulation). His service was regularized on 11.11.1998 as AE, PWD. Thereafter on 03.07.2000, he was promoted to the post of AEE.

(3.) The petitioner No.3 was initially appointed as AE in the year 1986 in the Irrigation Department. On 29.02.1988 he was appointed as AE in the PWD with pay protection and thereafter, on 03.07.2000, he was promoted to the post of AEE. The petitioner No.4 was also appointed as AE under Regulation for 4(d) on 16.09.1986. He was thereafter regularized on 11.01.1988. Consequently, he was promoted to the post of AEE on 03.07.2000.

Click here to view full judgment.

PARESH CHANDRA DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address