LILA BORDOLOI Vs. ASSAM STATE PUBLICATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and validity of the action of the respondents/authorities in compulsorily retiring the petitioners from their respective services under the Publication Board of Assam is the subject matter of controversy in this batch of writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. U. K. Nair and Mr. A. K. Bora, learned counsel for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. K. Phukan, learned Advocate General, Assam along with Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) BRIEFLY narrated relevant facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this batch of writ petitions which are heard analogously having given rise to common question for adjudication, are as follows : in WP (C) No. 5914/04, Mr. Lila Bordoloi, the petitioner, was initially appointed as Proof Reader on 26. 04. 75 by the Assam State Publication Board (for short 'the Publication Board') and was promoted to the rank of Circulation Officer in due course of time. The petitioner, Mr. Dwipen Sharma, in WP (C) No. 2610/05 was initially appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the year 1978 and was promoted to the rank of Accountant in the year 1995. The petitioner, Mr. Naren Talukdar @ Narendra Chandra Talukdar in W. P. (C) No. 3027/05 was previously appointed as Work-Charge Muharrar (Gr. IV) in the year 1975 and he was promoted up to the position of U. D. Asstt. in the year 1983. In W. P. (C) No. 4750/04, the petitioner, Sri Achyut Sen Deka, was also appointed as Gr. IV staff in the year 1979 and was promoted to the rank of L. D. Asstt. Sri Dinesh Chandra Gayan, the petitioner, in W. P. (C) No. 2616/05, was appointed as Peon on 17th September, 1979. It is contended that there is nothing adverse against any of the petitioners in their service career. The Publication Board, being in acute financial crunch, initially floated a scheme known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS scheme, 2004) and it was offered to all the 53 employees under the different cadres of the Publication Board offering the benefit, rendered under the said VRS scheme. Although some of the employees accepted the VRS scheme, the petitioners, however, did not opt to go on retirement under the said scheme, but due to financial crunch of the Publication Board, they were compulsorily retired from their services by separate Notifications issued against each of them. The said decision and Notification compulsorily retiring the petitioners by the Publication Board are challenged in the respective writ petitions.