WP(C) 2239/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. N. SHARMA WP(C) No 2239/2003 27.10.2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H N SARMA Heard Mr N Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr BC Ch oudhury, learned GA, Assam. The case of the petitioners, inter alia, is that they were appoi nted in the Regional Jiri Irrigation Project by the concerned Executive Engineer , Barak Valley Investigation Division (Irrigation), in the month of July, 2001 a nd since the date of appointments their salary has not been paid. Accordingly, t he petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondent auth ority to pay their salary as Section assistants in the said Jiri Irrigation Proj ect. The petitioners have also prayed for formulating a scheme for regularizatio n of their appointments by the aforesaid authorities. In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, respon dent No 6, the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed as Section Assi stants has been denied. The claim of issuance of the appointment letters to the petitioners has also been denied. It is further stated that no joining report ha ve been received by the concerned Executive Engineer from the petitioners. The l etter dated 30.12.2002 annexed to the counter affidavit written by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, to the Secretary to the government of Assam, Irr igation, disclosed that Jiri Irrigation Project in the district of Cachar was sp onsored by the North Eastern Council and the deputy commissioner, Cachar, reques ted the R&D department for early release of the funds and as per instructions of the local politicians engagements were given to some of the persons of the loca lity on ad hoc basis and in the said project subject to the condition of commenc ement of the works in the Project and placement of funds therefor. But no such w ork was carried out and no money was placed and the work did not commence. It is also reflected from the said letter that such engagement has been cancelled on 22.2.2002 and 5.6.2002. The respondents having denied the aforesaid vital factual aspect pleaded in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the relief cl aimed by the writ petitioners cannot be granted when the basic facts have been d isputed. From the documents available before me, I do not find that the petition ers have been able to make out a case for granting relief as prayed for in the w rit petition and the writ petition is without any substance and hence dismissed. JUDGE gch