Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Phanidhar Choudhury S/o Late Pito Ram Choudhury – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6326 of 2011
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Judicial review - Grant enhanced pay - Petitioner challenging Clause-2 of Staff Circular on ground that Clause violates mandate of Article 14 of Constitution of India inasmuch as there is no reasonable classification for not granting petitioner enhanced pay – Held, An additional fact or a different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when same principles are applied in each case to similar facts - Fundamental distinction between case in All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee (supra) and present case, Court is of opinion that ratio cannot be applied to facts of instant case - Scope of judicial review in respect to challenge to impugned Circular on touchstone of declared law is very limited unless and until a case of violation of Article 14 has been made out - Nothing could be shown or could be discerned from a perusal of materials on record which would show that Clause 2 of impugned Circular violates mandate of Article 14 of Constitution - Court holds that Clause 2 is not in violation of Article 14 of Constitution and accordingly, no interference is called for - Court without interfering with Clause 2 of impugned Circular disposes of writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 Bank to grant benefits, if not already granted, leave encashment by notionally fixing last drawn wages of petitioner in terms with Clause 1 of impugned Circular – Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Standing counsel of Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. who represents the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner before this Court has filed the instant writ petition challenging Clause-2 of the Staff Circular No. 49/2010 dated 17.08.2010 on the ground that the said Clause violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there is no reasonable classification for not granting the petitioner the enhanced pay for the period from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that he joined the respondent No. 2 Bank on 01.08.1970 and thereupon was transferred to several branches of the Bank and finally the petitioner joined the Silpukhuri Branch on 29.06.1998 as Branch Manager and retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (for short “the Rules of 2010”) which was brought into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the respondent No. 2 Bank had also in its Board Meeting dated 27.07.2010 resolved that the revised Pay Scale for the employees/officers of the Bank be declared as per the formula adopted by the Government of Assam with suitable modifications as and where necessary as per the details given in the said Resolution. On the basis of the said Meeting of the Board of Directors on 27.07.2010, the Staff Circular No. 49/2010 dated 17.08.2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Circular”) was issued. The petitioner herein having retired on 31.12.2007 is aggrieved by Clause-2 of the said impugned Circular. The same being relevant is reproduced herein-under:
In respect of employees who retired during the period from 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2010, no arrear shall be paid. In respect of employees who retired during the period from 01.05.2010 and after, arrears shall be credited to their Bank account in a single installment after adjustment of interim relief, other allowances, expenditures on car maintenance etc.”
4. A perusal of the said Clause reveals that the said Clause is in respect to those employees who retired during the period from 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2010. It has been mandated in terms with the said Clause that in respect to such employees no arrear shall be paid. However, in respect of employees, who retired during the period from 01.05.2010 and after, arrears shall be credited to their Bank Account in a single installment after adjustment of interim relief, other allowances, expenditures on car maintenance etc. The reason why the benefit has been given to those employees who retired after 01.05.2010 can be seen from a perusal of Clause-1 of the said impugned Circular which is reproduced herein-under:
The revised pay structure shall be effective from 01.05.2010 but the revised pay for the employees shall be notionally fixed as on 31.12.2005. Arrear amount with effect from 01.05.2010 shall be paid in a single installment through respective bank accounts of the employees. Interim relief, other allowances, (as circulated vide Staff Circular No. 2 of 2002 dated 31.01.2002) expenditures on car maintenance paid to the employees with effect from 01.05.2010 shall be recovered from the arrear amount so released.”
5. A perusal of the said Clause-1 would show that the revised pay structure shall be effective from 01.05.2010. However, the salary of such person would be notionally revised as on 31.12.2005. It is further seen that the arrear amount in question is only taken into consideration for the period from 01.05.2010 though the salary is notionally revised from 31.12.2005. Therefore, the arrear salary as has been stated in Clause-1 of the impugned Circular
Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
