Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Collegium approves proposal for appointment of 3 Additional Judges as Permanent Judges in Gauhati HC
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of the following Additional Judges as Permanent Judges in the Gauhati High Court:
1. Shri Justice Soumitra Saikia,
2. Shri Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, and
3. Shri Justice S. Hukato Swu.
Supreme Court
[Collegium Statement dt. 9-09-021]
Elevation of 3 Advocates and 2 Judicial Officers as Judges of Gauhati HC
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges in the Gauhati High Court:
1. Shri Kakheto Sema,
2. Shri Devashis Baruah, and
3. Shri Arun Dev Choudhury.
4. Smt. Malasri Nandi, and
5. Smt. Marli Vanku
Collegium Resolution
[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]
Gauhati High Court: Ajit Borthakur, J., granted bail to an IIT student accused of raping his junior. The Bench stated,
“Both the informant/victim girl and the accused were the state’s future assets being talented students pursuing technical courses at the I.I.T., Guwahati, who were young in the age group of 19 to 21 years only, the continuation of detention of the accused was not necessary.”
The instant petition was filed by the accused, namely Utsav Kadam praying for grant of bail in connection with a rape case pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge. The accused was a youngster aged about 21 years and was a student of B. Tech Pre-final year of Indian Institute of Technology (‘I.I.T.’), Guwahati in chemical engineering.
The case against the accused was that on 28-03-2021 at around 9 p.m., the accused lured the informant/victim female student of the same educational institution to Aksara School premises, in the pretext of discussing about her responsibility as the Joint Secretary of the Finance and Economic Club of the students of the I.I.T., Guwahati and after making her unconscious, by forcibly administering alcohol raped her. The victim regained her consciousness at around 5 a.m., the next morning at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, where she underwent treatment and forensic examination etc.
The petitioner contended that he had been in judicial custody for about 120 days in connection with the case, which was entirely based on assumption of commission of the offence of rape without any credible evidence. Therefore, it was urged by the petitioner that as the investigation had already been completed and as there was no chance of him jumping the course of justice in any manner, being a student of I.I.T., Guwahati, further continuation of his detention for the purpose of trial may not be warranted and that would amount to causing further damage to his brilliant academic pursuit.
While strongly opposing the bail application, Mr D. Das, counsel for the State contended that allegations made in detail by the victim girl, who was a student of 2nd year B. Tech Chemical Engineering of I.I.T., Guwahati, prima facie established a clear case in favour of the victim girl. Therefore, if liberty of bail was granted to the accused, the trial of the case was certain to be hampered, which may occasion gross injustice to the victim.
On hearing both sides and after considering relevant documents, i.e. FIR, medical report, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the contents of the charge-sheet and the Fact-Finding Committee Report etc., the Bench opined that there was a prima facie case as alleged against the accused petitioner. However, as the investigation in the case was completed and both the informant/victim girl and the accused were the state’s future assets being talented students pursuing technical courses at the I.I.T., Guwahati, who were young in the age group of 19 to 21 years only the Bench was of the view that continuation of detention of the accused was not necessary.
Also, the Court stated that there was no possibility of the accused tampering with their evidence or influencing them directly or indirectly, if released on bail. Hence, the accused was directed to be released on bail of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the like amount.[Utsav Kadam v. State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 1623 of 2021, decided on 13-08-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance by:
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. K N Choudhury
Advocate for the Respondent: PP, Assam
Gauhati High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ, and Manash Ranjan Pathak, J., directed to connect CCTV cameras of Hospitals to the nearest Police Station to put a check on increasing instances of violence against medical practitioners amid Covid-19.
The instant petition was heard along with a suo motu case registered with regard to the barbaric incident which took place in Assam’s Hojai district. According to reports[i], family members of the deceased patient brutally thrashed a young doctor following the patient’s demise at a Covid care centre.
As far as the abovementioned incident was concerned, the police had completed its investigation, charge-sheet had been filed and as many as twenty-four persons had already been arrested so far. Evidently, in its earlier order, the Court had directed the authorities concerned to ensure installation of CCTV cameras in hospitals, where no CCTV camera has been installed. And provide compensation to the Medicare Service Persons, who may be the victims of violence during discharge of their duties.
The Court, on being informed that almost all the Government Medical Colleges and the District Government Hospitals except some government and Model Hospitals were having CCTV cameras, directed that mere installation of CCTV cameras in the hospitals concerned was not enough and the CCTV cameras have to be connected to the nearest Police Station for further monitoring.[Asif Iqbal v. State of Assam, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1529, decided on 30-07-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance by:
Counsel for the Petitioner: S Islam
Counsel for the Respondent: D. Saikia
For the Gauhati High Court: S. Kalita, Standing counsel
[i] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/arrested-attack-junior-doctor-assam-hojai-ima-1809795-2021-06-02
Gauhati High Court: Nani Tagia, J., stayed the order of the State Executive Committee of Arunachal Pradesh whereby non-vaccinated persons for Covid-19 were being discriminated for the purpose of permit to enter the State for developmental works in both public and private sector.
Covid-19 Vaccination: Whether Mandatory or Voluntary?
The petitioner contended that as per the RTI Information furnished by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which is available on the Ministry’s website, Covid-19 vaccination is not mandatory but voluntary. The petitioner also referred to an answer given on 19-03-2021 in the Lok Sabha to an Unstarred Question No. 3976 by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare stating that there is no provision of compensation for recipients of Covid-19 Vaccination against any kind of side effects or medical complication that may arise due to inoculation. The Covid-19 Vaccination is entirely voluntary for the beneficiaries. The petitioner contended that the impugned order had interfered with the fundamental rights granted under Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution.
Analysis by the Court
Vide Clause 11 of the Order dated 30-06-2021, issued by the Chief Secretary cum Chairperson-State Executive Committee, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vaccinated and unvaccinated persons for Covid-19 virus had been classified into two groups for the purpose of issuing temporary permits for developmental works in both public and private sector. Clause 11 of the Order reads as under:
“11. Tourist ILPs shall remain suspended during the period of this order, however for developmental works in both public and private sector; temporary permits may be issued provided such persons are vaccinated for COVID 19.
While persons who were vaccinated for Covid-19 had been allowed to be issued with a permit to visit Arunachal Pradesh, persons who were not vaccinated with Covid-19 vaccine had not been allowed to be issued with a temporary permit to visit Arunachal Pradesh for developmental works in both public and private sector. The Bench stated that the right granted under Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution to move freely throughout the territory of India is not absolute and the State may impose reasonable restrictions either in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interest of the Scheduled Tribe. However, such restrictions must be a reasonable one conforming to the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Classification of Vaccinated and Non-vaccinated was based on intelligible differentia
Noticing that the classification sought to be made between the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons was to contain Covid-19 pandemic and its further spread in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Bench stated that, “there is no evidence available either in the record or in the public domain that Covid-19 vaccinated persons cannot be infected with Covid-19 virus, or he/she cannot be a carrier of a Covid-19 virus and consequently, a spreader of Covid-19 virus.”
The Bench said that in so far as the spread of Covid- 19 Virus to others is concerned, the Covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated person or persons are the same. Both can equally be a potential spreader if they are infected with the Covid-19 Virus in them. Hence, the classification must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing reasonable and just needs in respect of which it is made.
Hence, the Bench stated, if the sole object of issuing the impugned order was for containment of the Covid-19 pandemic and its further spread in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the classification sought to be made between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons was, prima facie, a classification not founded on intelligible differentia nor it was found to have a rational relation/nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification, namely, containment and further spread of Covid-19 pandemic.
Decision
Thus, the Bench held that the impugned notification violated Articles 14, 19 (1) (d) & 21 of the Constitution, in so far it made classification of vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons for the purpose of issuance of temporary permits for developmental works in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, Clause 11 of the impugned order was stayed to the extent it discriminated between Covid-19 vaccinated persons and Covid-19 unvaccinated persons.[Madan Mili v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1503, decided on 19-07-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
Advocates for the Petitioner: Debasmita Ghosh, Ebo Mili, Chanya Bangsia and S. Dey
Advocates for the Respondent: Marto Kato, ASG, R. H. Nabam, Addl. Adv. General, A.P
Gauhati High Court: The Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ., and Manash Ranjan Pathak, J., addressed a suo motu PIL concerning the plight of a rape victim, where the victim was a child between 12-15 years of age.
The incident alleged to had happened in the State of Arunachal Pradesh where a missing report was filed by one Mr Aka Kalung alleging that his domestic help who was a child brought from Nepal, had been missing. The girl was later recovered the next day but as she was reluctant to go to the house of the informant her custody was given to the Child Care Institute, where the victim made allegations of rape and sexual abuse against the informant, stating that he had been abusing her for the last many years.
Meanwhile, on the plea of the father of the victim the Sessions Judge, Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh directed the CCI to hand over the custody of the child to the “local guardian”. This local guardian was none else but the sister-in-law of the accused. The impugned order was challenged in revision before the High Court and the custody was not handed over to the local guardian. Therefore, another application was moved by the father of the child in which further direction was given to hand over the child to the local guardian.
Invoking the doctrine of Parens Patriae, the High Court held that since the local guardian to whom the custody was being handed over was a close related of none else but the accused, it would not serve the interest of justice and definitely it would not be in the best interest of the victim child.
Hence, the order of the Sessions Judge was stayed with the further directions to the lower Courts not to take up any other application where the subject matter relates to the custody of the child. The custody of the Child was granted to CCI. Further, directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry by personally visiting the CCI and furnish the details with regard to the facilities available in the CCI, including the fact that such an institute was registered or not.
The Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, where the CCI was located was directed to ensure that the child was given every protection in the institute and she should not be allowed to be visited either by the accused or his relative or even by her father till the next date of listing. However, the Bench made an exception of the mother of the child. Who was allowed to visit the child and stay with her.
Observing the sensitivity of the matter, the Bench issued strict directions to the State to depute a team of medical officers, including a lady doctor to conduct medical examination on the victim, only for the determination of her age. The Bench emphasised strictly that the examination shall be limited to a bone ossification test and no other test be done as the victim had already been medically examined.[State of Arunachal Pradesh, In Re., PIL (Suo Moto) No. 5 of 2021, decided on 30-06-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
For the Petitioner: U K Nair, Sr. Adv
For the Respondent: A Chandran, Addl. Sr. Ga, Ap
Gauhati High Court: In a case related to the availability of oxygen and vaccination in the State of Nagaland the Division Bench comprising of Songkhupchung Serto and S. Hukato Swu, JJ., directed the state government to ramp up vaccination status for the health workers, Shopkeepers and vegetable vendors, journalists and judicial fraternity. The Bench remarked,
“They (health workers) are the people who are delivering the health service to the people; in case they are infected they will be the ones who will be spreading the virus to others.”
Considering the submissions made by Union and State counsels the Court was of the view that though vaccination is going on, availability of the vaccine is far short of the number of people that needs to be vaccinated in the State. The Bench stated that if the State has to fight the Covid war effectively and prevent the 3rd wave coming and causing so much suffering as the 2nd wave had done, the only way is ramping up vaccination and complete the same at the earliest. The Bench reminded the government that,
“The 3rd wave might be just standing at the door if vaccination is not done with speed and proper Covid behaviours are not followed.”
Therefore, directions were issued to the State and the Central Government to do all possible at their command to make the required number of doses of vaccination available in time so that vaccination could be carried out with speed and be completed at least within 3 months. Hence, the Health Department and State government were directed to come up with instructions to make the required number of doses of vaccine available within 3 months.
Noticing that nothing substantial had been done by the State with regard to Court’s order regarding vaccination of Shopkeepers and vegetable vendors since they are vulnerable section of the society who are also potential spreader of the virus due to the nature of their profession, the Bench warned the State government to take some pragmatic steps so that priority is given to these groups of people at the earliest. Concerning the health workers, the data submitted before the Court suggested that out of 25,000 plus only 15,000 plus had taken the vaccination and out of that 10,000 plus had taken their 2nd dose. Finding these figures concerning because these they are the people who are delivering the health service to the people, the Bench stated that in case they are infected they will be the ones who will be spreading the virus to others. The Bench further stated,
“We are aware of the fact that nobody can be forced to take vaccine unless they volunteer. However, the authorities should make sure that these health workers, in case they do not volunteer to take the vaccine, produce their testing certificate as and when they report for duties.”
The District Task Force was also directed to ensure that private hospitals also follow the same directions. Appreciating that vaccination camps had been organized at Secretariat and Directorate level regarding other Government servants, the Bench cautioned the Government and authorities concerned that no such camp had been organized the judicial fraternity.
Acknowledging the nature of work with regard to the journalist community, the Bench also directed that a special camp should also be organized for them. Lastly, the Bench remarked, “since no one knows as to when this war against Covid will end, the Government should come up with some pragmatic plan so that office works are not affected for such a long time.”
[Kohima, In re., PIL (Suo Moto) 1 of 2021, decided on 30-06-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Taka Masa
Counsel for the State: Mr. K. Sema, Addl. Sr. Advocate General
Counsel for the Health Department: Mr. N. Mozhui
Counsel for Union of India: Ms. Akhala, ASGI
Gauhati High Court: Manish Choudhury, J., granted bail to the woman charged with sedition for using National Flag as a table cloth.
The petitioner, Ms Rajina Parbin Sultana was booked under Sections 120B/124A IPC and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and had been in custody since 16-05-2021. The petitioner was accused of using the Indian National Flag as a table cloth on the occasion of the Eid festival when a picture of hers having lunch on that dining table with some guests went viral on social media. Pursuant to the said incident several allegations were made against the petitioner of willfully dishonouring the Indian National Flag.
The petitioner had submitted before the Court that out of the 6 (six) accused persons named in the FIR, 5 (five) of them had already been released on bail. It was argued that even if the accusations made in the FIR were prima facie accepted to be true, the same could not be brought within the purview of the offence under Section 124A, IPC.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the accused-petitioner was the host for the lunch which was held in her house, on 14-05-2021 when the alleged act was committed. It was submitted that there was ample evidence that the accused petitioner had used a table cloth resembling the Indian National Flag while inviting guests to her house on the occasion of Eid festival.
Noticing that the sentence was to the effect that the accused-petitioners were under 30 from a middle-class background and therefore had the clout to influence the investigation”; and considering that the said incident was an unintentional mistake, the Court accepted the defence argument with the suggestion to the petitioner to exercise more care and caution in future. The Bench stated that the question of whether the accused-petitioner, by her act had, committed the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 in any public place or any other place within public view is to be considered on the basis of the materials collected during the course of the investigation and its admissibility during the course of the trial. Hence,
“It did not prima facie suggest to be an act to have the affect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred or creating disaffection against it.”
Considering the period of detention of the accused-petitioner since 16-05-2021 and the progress made in the investigation, the Court held that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner was not necessary for the purpose of carrying out an investigation of the case and her release on bail at this stage of the investigation was not likely to cause any prejudicial effect in the further investigation, provided she continues to extend her assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000. [Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam, Bail Appln./1123 of 2021, decided on 08-06-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
Advocate for the Petitioner: Syed Burhanur Rahman
Advocate for the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
President of India appoints Shri Robin Phukan, to be an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court. He will hold the office for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Shri Robin Phukan, M.Sc., LL.M., joined the Judicial Service on 09.03.1993. and has served as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup; Civil Judge & Asstt. Sessions Judge, Tezpur; Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Silchar; Registrar (PM&P); Registrar (Administration); Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar General Gauhati High Court; District & Sessions Judge, Golaghat; Special judge, CBI & NIA. He was working as District & Sessions Judge, Jorhat from 06.01.2020.
Gauhati High Court: The Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ. and Manash Ranjan Pathak, J., took up a petition filed in the nature of PIL; concern raised was the present condition of sex workers in Assam who, according to the petitioner in most cases, were on the verge of starvation, considering the strange and difficult times of the present COVID-19 pandemic, which is now in its second wave.
Counsel for the petitioner, Ms D Ghosh submitted before the Court an order passed by the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010, dated- 29-09-2020 where certain directions were given regarding relief and aid to be given to sex workers during the present COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner had moved an impleadment application in compliance of this Court’s order on 27-05-2021 for impleading the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development as well as National AIDS Control Organization, represented by Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, as respondent.
The court allowed the impleadment application.
Mr R.K.D. Choudhury, Assistant Solicitor General of India was given directions to apprise the Court as to how the National AIDS Control Organization through the Assam State AIDS Control Society will give relief to the sex workers in Assam during the present pandemic, and how will the sex workers be identified. Mr R. Dhar, Senior Government Advocate, Assam was also asked to obtain necessary instructions in the matter.
On the urge of the counsel for the petitioner an interim mandamus was issued directing the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar as well as the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Cachar to immediately provide ration to sex workers and their family members in Cachar who were struggling in the current situation.[Debajit Gupta v. State of Assam, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1169, decided on 28-05-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Gauhati High Court: The Division Bench comprising of N. Kotiswar Singh and Somitra Saikia, JJ., heard the instant petition against the ex-parte order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal by which the petitioner was declared an illegal migrant of post-1971 stream. The Bench remarked,
“By virtue of citizenship, one becomes a member of a sovereign country and becomes entitled to various rights and privileges granted by law in the country and, as such, if any question arises about citizenship of a person…the same should be adjudicated as far as possible on the basis of merit and on hearing the person concerned.”
Though notice was served, according to the petitioner, upon receipt of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, her son appeared on her behalf without her knowledge. But unfortunately, the petitioner’s son neglected to appear before the Tribunal on various
dates fixed by the Tribunal resulting in passing of the ex-parte order. The contention of the petitioner was that the Tribunal passed the order without hearing the petitioner which had deprived her of her citizenship.
The Bench opined that citizenship is one of the most important rights of a person. By virtue of citizenship, one becomes a member of a sovereign country and becomes entitled to various rights and privileges granted by law in the country and, as such, if any question arises about citizenship of a person, the same should be adjudicated on the basis of merit and on hearing the person concerned. In view of above, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration of the issue as to whether the petitioner is a foreigner. Further, the petitioner was directed to ensure her presence before the aforesaid Foreigners Tribunal.
Additionally, after observing that the petitioner’s citizenship was under cloud as the petitioner had already been declared a foreigner, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), within 15 days and furnish a bail bond of Rs.5000 with one local surety of the like amount. The authority concerned was directed to allow the petitioner to have remained on bail.
The Superintendent of Police (Border) was granted liberty to obtain necessary information and documentation along with biometric details as required under the rules from the petitioner for securing her presence. However, the Court imposed restriction on the petitioner from leaving the State without giving details of the place of destination and her place of stay to the Superintendent of Police.[Rahima Khatun v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 8284 of 2019, decided on 08-04-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
For the Petitioner: Adv. P. N. Goswami and Adv. D. Gogoi
For the Respondents: Sr. Adv. P. S. Bhattacharjee, Special Counsel J. Payeng, Adv. B. Das and Standing Counsel P. S. Lahkar
President of India appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was enrolled as an Advocate on July 07, 1986, and practiced in the Allahabad and Uttarakhand High Courts in Civil, Constitutional, Service, and Labour matters and has specialized in Service and Constitutional matters. He was appointed as Permanent Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court on November 1, 2008.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Press Release dt. 07-01-2020]
Gauhati High Court: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua J., while reiterating the principle laid down by Supreme Court, with respect to calculation and payment of the retirement benefits, issued necessary directions to the respondent authorities.
Background
The petitioner working as an Assistant Teacher in Lower Muolhoi School in the district Dima Hasao, Assam, retired from service on 31-03-2018. After his retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionary benefits, the communication dated 05-06-2020 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the District Primary Education Officer, Haflong, Assam, by which, it was provided that during his service tenure, the petitioner was paid a salary higher than his actual scale. Accordingly, by the said communication, the District Primary Education Officer, Haflong, Assam was required to do the needful. The said communication has been assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, recovery from the pensionary benefits cannot be made in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during his service period for no fault of his own.
Observation
The Court observed, “The law in this respect has been settled by the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it had been held that in the event an excess salary is paid to an employee during his/her service tenure because of no fault of his/her, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits.” Further, it was said, “(…) the ends of justice would be met if the authorities in the Pension Department make an assessment as to whether there was any contribution on the part of the petitioner in receiving such excess salary during his service tenure. In the event, if it is found that there was no such contribution from the petitioner leading to such excess payment, the authorities shall not insist upon the recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as indicated above.”
Decision
Allowing the present petition, the Court stated the correct payment of the petitioner according to which the pension was to be calculated and not the higher pay which he derived during his service. Moreover, directions were given to conduct the assessment within a period of two months so to effectuate the entire process.[Hrangthalien Tamhrang v. State of Assam, 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4499, decided on 24-11 2020]
Sakshi Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
The President in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (l) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, has appointed Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Nani Tagia, and Justice Manish Choudhury, the Additional Judges of the Gauhati High Court, as Judges of the Gauhati High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. Notifications No.K-13018/02/2020-US.11 and No. K. 13018/03/2020-US.II dated 05-11-2020, have been issued in this regard by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Press Release dt. 06-11-2020]
[Source: PIB]
Gauhati High Court: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua J., while allowing the present petition for regularization, placed reliance upon the judgment dated 13-03-2019 in WP (C) 7779 of 2018, by the present Court, which provided that “any appointment made under the die-in-harness scheme under compassionate ground is to be made on regular basis.”
Brief Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Work Charge (Tracer) on compassionate ground, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions laid down in the office memorandum dated 09-09-1983. It is stated and admitted that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in office memorandum mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner further states that although she was appointed on compassionate ground, her appointment had not been regularized. Furthermore, the Deputy Secretary, PWRD vide the communication dated 30-03-2019, informed that the Finance Department had rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has approached the Court through the present petition.
Issue
Whether the present petition for regularization maintainable?
Decision
While allowing the present petition, the Court said, “the claim for compassionate appointment can either be rejected or accepted as per law, but once it is accepted the appointment is understood to be regular appointment.” The Court further placed reliance on the judgment of the present Court in an earlier matter and also issued necessary directions to the PWRD and Finance Department.[Ashmia Dhar v. State of Assam, 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4150, decided on 19-10-2020]
Advocate for the petitioner: B. D. Das, Advocate
Advocate for the respondent: P. Nayak, Finance Department, SC PWD
Sakshi Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
President appoints Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, senior-most Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 21-09-2020 consequent upon the retirement of Justice Ajai Lamba, Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 16-09-2020]
The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ. resolves to recommend that Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge, Gauhati High Court, be transferred, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Bombay High Court.
Collegium Resolution
[Notification dt. 28-08-2019]
Supreme Court of India
President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Arup Kumar Goswami, senior-most Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna relinquishes the charge as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court consequent upon his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
[Notification dt. 22-05-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
