IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram And Arunachal Pradesh)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Sarma, S/o. Sri Ramani Kanta Sarma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondents
W.P.(C.) No. 152 Of 2020
Decided On : 13-09-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14,16 ,77(1),77(2) ,166(1),166(2),226,309 - Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 - Rule 8 – Superintendents – Equality before law – Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment – Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with two-fold prayers, firstly, for setting aside and quashing of an order - Whether prayers made in this writ petition by petitioner can be granted - Whether Government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from mala fide, legal or factual - Whether a particular post is to be merged into a cadre or a particular cadre is to be merged - It is settled law that all executive actions of the Government of India and the Government of a State are required to be taken in the name of President or the Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be[Articles 77(1) and 166(1)].(Para 22).
Findings of the Court: Court is of considered view that various observations by different Departments made in process of considering case of petitioner for merger of post of Data Entry Operator into cadre of Jr.A.A. cannot be made the basis of any claim by petitioner for a direction in nature of Mandamus for merger of post of Data Entry Operator in GAD which is albeit an ex-cadre post, into cadre of Jr.A.A., governed and regulated by the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, as amended, as there is no decision of Government sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order under Article 166 of Constitution of India.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with two-fold prayers, firstly, for setting aside and quashing of an order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, that is, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secretariat Administration Department [SAD], and secondly, for a direction to the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for merger of the post of Data Entry Operator in which he is currently serving, with the post of Junior Administrative Assistant [Jr.A.A.] in the establishment of the General Administration Department [GAD], Assam Secretariat, Government of Assam in terms of the Resolution made in the Report of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission and the Report of the Committee constituted to examine the Report of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission, by giving the consequential service benefits to him as per the provisions of the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, as amended.
2. The case projected on behalf of the petitioner can be exposited as follows :
2.1. By an Office Order dated 16.07.2010 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam [GoA], GAD, the petitioner came to be appointed as Data Entry Operator in the GAD, GoA in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 5,200/-- Rs. 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,500/-p.m. plus other allowances as admissible under the law. On receiving the Office Order dated 16.07.2010, the petitioner joined in the post of Data Entry Operator on 17.07.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that by various Office Orders, dated 02.08.2010, 07.12.2010, 13.11.2013, 08.02.2016 & 14.06.2017 respectively, the General Administration Department [GAD] distributed the works amongst the employees in the Department and from the said Office Orders, it is clearly discernible that the petitioner has since long been entrusted with works which are ordinarily done by a Jr.A.A.
2.2. As the petitioner was discharging the similar kind of duties as like the Jr.A.A., a member in the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service, and was granted same pay scale like the Jr.A.A., the petitioner submitted a Memorandum before the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission on 05.01.2016 to examine his case and to recommend for encadrement of the post of Data Entry Operator in the GAD, GoA with the cadre of Jr.A.A. which post is encadred under the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963. The Memorandum of the petitioner came to be considered by the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission. In the Report submitted by the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission containing its recommendations, the Commission after examination of the case of the petitioner noted that the petitioner is a graduate and was appointed in a post in the same Pay Band of the Jr.A.A. with Grade Pay of Rs. 3,000/-. With such notes, the Commission had recommended that since the petitioner had the qualification of the Jr.A.A., the single post of Data Entry Operator should be merged with the cadre of Jr.A.A. fixing his seniority in accordance with the principles to be determined by the Personnel Department, GoA.
2.3. The Committee constituted by the State Government to examine the Report of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission in its Report had also agreed with the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission in so far as the recommendation made with regard to the case of the petitioner was concerned and had advised the GAD to take up the matter with the Personnel Department. Thereafter, the Government after careful consideration of the Report of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission and the Report of the Committee thereof, had accepted the recommendations of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission with modifications as suggested by the Committee and any other modifications as have been deemed necessary and publish
Food Corporation of India and others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and others
Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others
State of Orissa and others vs. Jagabandhu Panda
State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish
State of Punjab vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab
State of Bihar vs. Kripalu Shankar
Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Shri Kishan
Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA
SupremeToday
Cabinet being a general controlling body is constitutionally entrusted with duty of formulating national policy whose decisions are binding on all governmental departments.
Assam Subordinate Secretariat Service Rules, 1963 clearly includes PWD Secretariat within its fold, it cannot be said that Water Resources Department should be treated to be outside purview of Rules.
The court established that the Odisha Public Service Commission must restructure its cadre to align terms of service with the Secretariat, ensuring equal treatment under the governing regulations, ad....
Promotion eligibility governed by current administrative rules; previous qualifications irrelevant after absorption into new regulations.
The court affirmed the validity of the merger of Senior Supply Inspectors with Area Rationing Officers effective from 30.06.2011, ruling that executive orders cannot override statutory rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cut-off date for promotion eligibility, as prescribed under Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993, applies ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.