Judgment · High Court

Both Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents are heard a t length. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the order date d 27.8.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.616/2012 and submits that as the f acts of this case are virtually in parimateria with the facts of WP(C) No.616/20 12, this writ petition may also be disposed of along the same line. The submissi on of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by the learned cou nsel for the respondents. The petitioners, in this writ petition, were appointed as Home Guard/SPO on vari ous dates between 1994 and 2011 by the Respondents No.4 and 5 u/S 6(3)(a) of the Assam Home Guards Act, 1947, whereafter they also underwent Home Guards trainin g. Though they were engaged as SPO on several occasions and had been discharging duties with the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities, they are, at p resent, rendered out of work/duty. The case of the petitioners is that they are now overage, and there is no chance for them to get fresh engagement in the Government services. The allegation of the petitioners is that some ex-Home Guards as well as fresh candidates were ap pointed by the respondents and are continuing in the post. But the petitioners a re never re-engaged. As this is a covered case, the petitioners shall file fresh representation befor e the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department as we ll as the Director General of Police, Assam within 10 days from today, whereafte r, the respondent-authorities will take a decision thereon in accordance with la w within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ord er. The decision taken by the Respondent No.2 shall be communicated to this Cour t. The writ petition is disposed of.