SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
Paritosh Chandra Ghosh S/o Late Prahlad Chandra Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4643 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Ghosh.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Nature of the order proposed to be passed - notice - Assistant Teacher - Competent authority to waive recovery in terms - Increment was due somewhere between it will be given had caused certain anomalies to the extent that an employee, - Petitioner refers to Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Assam in Finance Department - Annual increment between - Prior to the clarification provided - Certain anomalies to the extent that an employee, whose increment whereas another employee whose increment would have been otherwise - There is an entry countersigned by the Inspector of Schools - increment of the petitioner in revised scale of pay would become effective from the first of May of that given year - Petitioner continued with his service till his date of superannuation and he retired - petitioner is aggrieved by the order Finance and Accounts Officer in office of the Director of Pension, Assam - Order of Finance and Accounts Officer gives indication that pay of the petitioner as ought to have been Finance and Accounts officer was of view that there was some excess drawl by petitioner and by taking such view - paying regular pension to petitioner had not been carried forward – Held, Finance and Accounts Officer is still of the view that scale of pay of the petitioner ought to have been appropriate order may be passed - necessary consideration and order be passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer within a period of one month from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Court further take note of that even if Finance and Accounts Officer retains his earlier conclusion that the scale as ought to have been still as there does not appear to be any collusion or fraud on part of petitioner in getting his salary at the scale - Determination of Finance and Accounts officer of the scale of pay of petitioner would have its bearing only on pension amount that is payable to petitioner and it cannot be a reason for initiating any process for recovery - If ultimately it is concluded that the petitioner would be entitled to a scale of pay per month as pension papers of the petitioner be processed based on such scale of pay - writ petition is allowed

JUDGMENT :

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. N.M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the Director of Pension, Assam and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 being the authorities under the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice not required to be issued to respondent No. 6 being the Principal of I.N. Academy H.S School, Bilasipara in the Dhubri district.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 6 school on 14.05.1985 in the intermediate scale of pay of Rs. 520-920/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner was up-graded to Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay which is Rs. 1375 to Rs. 3375/- per month on 30.12.1993. In the Service Book of the petitioner, there is an entry countersigned by the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri district, by referring to certain order of the I/S No. PCB/Fix/98(1)/3861-69 dated 17.08.2004 communicated vide DS Ess Letter No. JB-Est/ZSE/cc/88/2002/51 dated 15.03.2004 and Finance Department U/O No. FPC/35/2004 dated 27.02.2004 and Govt. Letter No. B(3) S-68/2004/18 dated 27.02.2004, whereby it was provided that the increment of the petitioner in the revised scale of pay would become effective from the first of May of that given year. The petitioner continued with his service till his date of superannuation and he retired on 30.05.2020. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2021 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Director of Pension, Assam, by which it was provided as under:-

    “As the incumbent was upgraded to Graduate scale on 10.12.1993 with DNI on 01.12.1994 the DNI cannot be changed back to May for revision of pay from 1.1.1996 and his pay may be regulated accordingly. Further, his pay on 1.1.2006 should be fixed at the stage of Rs. 12480/- instead of Rs. 12800/-. Excess drawal may be assessed with due and drawn statement. However, HOO may move to the competent authority to waive recovery in terms of Para 8 of Govt. OM No. Fin (EC-III) 1808/2018/2 dated 14.06.2019.”

3. A reading of the order of the Finance and Accounts Officer gives the indication that the pay of the petitioner as on 01.01.2006 ought to have been Rs. 12480/- and not Rs. 12800/-. Accordingly, the Finance and Accounts officer was of the view that there was some excess drawl by the petitioner and by taking such view, the process for paying regular pension to the petitioner had not been carried forward any further.

4. Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the OM No. FPC 85/2009/Pt/ 110 dated 01.06.2012 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department, which inter-alia provides the entitlement of increment by such employees, who were due to get their annual increment between February to June of the year 2006. Prior to the clarification provided in the OM Dated 01.06.2012, the rule in place was that in respect of the revision of pay under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 irrespective of the month on which an increment is due to an employee, the increment under the revised scale would be from 01.07.2006, meaning thereby that even if the increment was due in the month between July and December of 2006, it would be provided from 01.07.2006 and on the other hand, if the increment was due somewhere between February and May of 2006, still it will be given from 01.07.2006. This had caused certain anomalies to the extent that an employee, whose increment was due between February and May of 2006 would now get it from 01.07.2006 whereas another employee whose increment would have been otherwise due between July and December of 2006 would a

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top