WP(C) 4316/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Gho sh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the communication dated 24.06.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (A) to the Sen ior Superintendent of Police, City, Guwahati and consequent order dated 14.07.20 10 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, City, Guwahati, terminating th e petitioner from his employment as part time employee (casual) with immediate e ffect, along with two others. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to the av erments made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition has submitted that though by t he order dated 14.07.2010 the petitioner has been discontinued as part time empl oyee (casual) along with two others, namely, Sri Amar Hazarika and Smt. Makani D as, Sri Amar Hazarika has been given employment under the Director General of Ci vil Defence and Home Guard and the Government is also considering the employment of Smt. Makani Das, without however considering the case of the petitioner at a ll. Mr. Nair, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving the same benefit as has been given to the other similarly placed persons, namely, Sri Amar Hazarika and Smt. Makani Das. Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents relying o n the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Senior Superint endent of Police, has submitted that since the petitioner was engaged after 01.0 4.1993 and has not completed 5(five) years as on 24.01.2001, he has been discont inued as part time employee (casual) in view of the office memorandum dated 30.1 0.2001 issued by the Finance Department. According to Mr. Ghosh, no illegality, therefore, has been committed by the Senior Superintendent of Police in disconti nuing the petitioner as part time employee (casual). Relating to the submission made by Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the pet itioner that other similarly placed persons are treated differently, Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner may for that purpose approach the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam i n Home Department by way of a representation ventilating his grievance and if su ch representation is made, the same shall definitely be considered by the said a uthority. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged as part time employee (casual) aft er 09.04.1993. The Govt. of Assam in Finance Department vide office memorandum d ated 30.10.2001 has circulated its decision to discontinue with such casual empl oyees, who have not completed 5(five) years of service as on 24.01.2001. The pet itioner admittedly has not completed 5(five) years of service on 24.01.2001. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (A), in view of the said decision of the Gov t. of Assam, issued the impugned communication dated 24.06.2010 to the Senior Su perintendent of Police requesting him to discontinue with such casual employees, who have not rendered 5(five) years of service as on 24.01.2001. Consequently t he Superintendent of Police issued the impugned order dated 14.07.2010 discontin uing the petitioner as part time employee (casual). The aforesaid office memoran dum dated 30.10.2001 is not put to challenge in the present writ proceeding. As discussed above, the impugned communication dated 24.06.2010 and the impugned order dated 14.07.2010 were issued, in view of the Government’s decisio n as reflected in the aforesaid office memorandum dated 30.10.2001. The said com munication and the order, therefore, cannot be held to be illegal requiring inte rference by this Court. The writ petitioner, however, in paragraph 14 of the writ petition has s tated on oath that though by the impugned order dated 14.07.2010 two other simil arly placed persons, namely, Sri Amar Hazarika and Smt. Makani Das, who are simi larly placed with that of the petitioner and who were discontinued as part time employee (casual), Sri Amar Hazarika has been given employment under the Directo r General of Civil Defence and Home Guard and the case of Smt. Makani Das is als o under consideration for giving employment. According to the petitioner similar benefit has not been given to him. Such assertion of the petitioner has not bee n denied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, who cannot naturally do so beca use it is not the allegation of the petitioner that the aforesaid persons have b een employed in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The other res pondents have also not filed the affidavit denying the allegation made in paragr aph 14 of the writ petition. That being the position, the present writ petition is disposed of with t he observation that the petitioner may approach the Commissioner and Secretary t o the Govt. of Assam in Home Department by way of a representation ventilating h is grievances and seeking employment and if such representation is made, the sam e shall definitely be considered and disposed of within 1(one) month from the da te of receipt of the same, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also fil e a copy of this order passed today with the said representation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.