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

2022 Supreme(Gau) 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Ananta Ram Kalita, S/o Late Tarini Charan Kalita - Petitioners
Versus
The Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Represented by The Commissioner - Respondents
W.P.(C.) No.554 Of 2017
Decided On : 05-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.K. Muktar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Borah, Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate.

Point of Law: Court did not interfere with decision of Respondent Corporation in giving higher pay scale to employees having higher educational qualifications.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioners, 3 [three] in nos., have instituted writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India stating that they are espousing a common cause of action and by making assailment of an order passed by respondent no. 2, whereby, cases of the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 for promotion to the next grade on principle of next below rule were rejected - Whether present three petitioners were similarly situated to petitioners in two writ petitions, W.P.[C] - Whether private respondents therein could be treated differently by giving higher pay scale on basis of their educational qualifications - It is trite to mention that whenever a superior Court in exercise of its power of judicial review gives a direction to an authority as to manner in which matter is to be given consideration, authority has obligation to consider and decide matter in light of such direction (Para 14)

Findings of the Court: It is trite to mention that whenever a superior Court in exercise of its power of judicial review gives a direction to an authority as to manner in which matter is to be given consideration, authority has obligation to consider and decide matter in light of such direction. In view of direction contained in order passed in writ petition, W.P.[C], respondent no. 2 had obligation to consider cases of petitioners for promotion also on basis of next below rule - But from a perusal of impugned order it is not demonstrated that respondent had considered case of petitioners for promotion on basis of next below rule - By order, respondent no. 2 in deference to direction made by this Court in its order passed in writ petition, W.P[C], respondent no. 2 had promoted respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 who were not graduates and juniors to petitioners, to post of Senior Grade Officer, date from which their juniors were promoted by creating two supernumerary posts.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation [GMC] for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioners, 3 [three] in nos., have instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that they are espousing a common cause of action and by making assailment of an order dated 03.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby, the cases of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 3 for promotion to the next grade on the principle of next below rule were rejected. The impugned order was in deference to a direction made by an order dated 29.10.2014 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6496/2013 wherein all the present three petitioners were the petitioners. The impugned order dated 03.01.2015 has not, however, made any mention about the case of the petitioner no. 2 for promotion though direction was made in the order dated 29.10.2014 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6496/2013 for consideration of the case of the petitioner no. 2 in similar manner.

3. The three petitioners along with 17 others came to be appointed in the post of Lower Division Assistant [LDA] in the respondent Guwahati Municipal Corporation [‘the Corporation’, for short] by an order dated 19.01.1977. By an order dated 31.12.1984 passed by the respondent no. 2, 22 nos. of LDAs including the three petitioners, were promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant [UDA]. By an order dated 17.02.1992, 40 nos. of UDAs were transferred/posted to different newly created/revived posts mentioned against their names in their own grade scale of pay and allowances with immediate effect. By the order dated 17.02.1992, the petitioner no. 1 was transferred and posted as Assistant Assessment Officer, West Zone whereas the petitioner no. 2 who was serving as UDA, Accounts Branch stood transferred and posted as Junior Accountant. The petitioner no. 3 who was also in the Licence Branch like the petitioner no. 1, was transferred and posted as Assistant Licence Officer, Central Zone. In the year 1997, all the three writ petitioners were promoted along with 24 other employees by an order dated 28.08.1997. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 3 were promoted to the post of Assessment Officer in the Assessment Branch of West Zone and East Zone of the respondent Corporation respectively. The petitioner no. 2 was promoted from the post of UDA to the post of Head Assistant in the Personnel Branch of the respondent Corporation. At the time of such promotions by the order dated 28.08.1997 both the posts of Assessment Officers and Head Assistant carried the Pay Scale of Rs. 1,635–3,950/-. Both the posts of Assessment Officer and the Head Assistant carried the same Pay Scale of Rs. 4,120-9,725/-with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,500/-in terms of the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010.

4. The respondent Corporation by a Notice dated 06.10.1982 published a seniority list of employees working in the post of LDA, LDA [Typist], etc. wherein the names of the three petitioners herein had figured at serial nos. 9, 12 and 13 respectively. There was also a notice therein to submit complaint within a period of one month if anybody was aggrieved. The respondent Corporation had published another similar seniority list of employees working in the post of UDA, etc. in the respondent Corporation on 13.03.1991 under the hand of the Joint Commissioner of the respondent Corporation and in the said list of UDAs of the respondent Corporation, the names of the three petitioners figured at serial nos. 11, 14 and 15 respectively.

5. The respondent no. 2 by an order dated 24.05.2007 promoted 15 nos. of employees of the respondent Corporation who were working in similar posts like the three petitioners herein, to the next higher posts like Senior Assessment Officer, Senior Licence Officer, etc. which carried a pay scal

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