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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 713

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Dibyajyoti Borah, S/o. Sri Kamal Chandra Borah And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Higher Education Technical Dept. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3770 of 2021, WP(C) No.5610 of 2022, WP(C) No.1162 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri S.S. Goswami, Shri S. Borthakur.
For the respondents:Shri A.R. Tahbildar, SC, Higher Education, Shri R. Boro, Advocate, AG, Shri R. Sensua, Advocate (R-4)

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to pay protection for employees when shifting from one Government organization to another, and the discriminatory treatment of employees in such cases.

Headnote:

Protection of Pay - Educational Institutions - Societies Registration Act, 1860, AICTE, UGC Norms and Guidelines - The judgment discusses the protection of pay for employees owing to developments in the management of educational institutions. It refers to the Societies Registration Act, 1860, AICTE, UGC Norms and Guidelines, and the control and functioning of the Society under the Government. The court emphasizes the right to pay protection and its violation in the case.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the protection of pay for employees of two educational institutions, Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology (JIST) and Bineswar Brahma Engineering College (BBEC), due to changes in management. The employees were appointed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and later faced issues related to pay protection after the administrative control of the institutions was taken over by the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the differentiation of the petitioners from candidates appointed through the APSC, and the denial of pay protection, was discriminatory. It emphasized that the Societies were under the absolute control of the Government and that the protection of pay is a basic right of an employee when shifting from one Government organization to another. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to pay protection and eligibility for Career Advancement Scheme from the date of their initial appointment.

Issues: The primary issue was the denial of pay protection to the petitioners following the administrative takeover of the educational institutions. The court also addressed the discriminatory treatment of the petitioners compared to candidates appointed through the APSC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the differentiation of the petitioners from candidates appointed through the APSC was discriminatory, and the petitioners were entitled to pay protection and eligibility for Career Advancement Scheme from the date of their initial appointment. It emphasized the control and functioning of the Society under the Government and the violation of the right to pay protection.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the court directed the grant of pay protection and the consequential holding of the petitioners to be eligible for Career Advancement Scheme from the date of their initial appointment, to be done expeditiously within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order.

JUDGMENT :

All these three writ petitions being connected, are taken up for an analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The issue is primarily related to a protection of pay of the petitioners owing to certain developments in the management of the establishments where they were employed. The establishments in question are two educational institutions namely the Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology, Jorhat (erstwhile Jorhat Science College) and the Bineswar Brahma Engineering College in the district of Kokrajhar. For the sake of convenience, the background of the two establishments which would be relevant for the adjudication of these cases are separately mentioned as hereunder.

3. The erstwhile Jorhat Science College was converted to the Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology (JIST) vide a notification dated 18.11.2008 issued by the Higher Education (Technical) Department, Govt. of Assam. Subsequently, a Society was formed through a Memorandum of Association (MoA) called the Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology dated 20.07.2009. The aforesaid Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioners have highlighted Clause 3 (iv) whereby the action to appoint employee/personnel in the Society was to be done after prior approval of the State Government. As per Clause-4, General Body and the membership was notified, in which out of 10 members, 5 are senior personnel of the Government, two Heads of Department of the College, two eminent social workers and one Principal of the Institute as Member Secretary. The Chief Secretary of the State of Assam was to be the Chairman of the Governing Body and as per Clause-6, the Chairman would preside over all the meetings of the Governing Body. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to Clause 9 (iii) whereby the duties, salaries, allowances and other service conditions of the officers and employees of the Society are to be fixed with the prior approval of the State Government. Under Clause-17, the names of the Members of the First Governing Body of the Society have also been given which is as per Clause-4 mentioned above.

4. After formation of the Society, the Higher Education Department had created various posts vide Communication dated 20.08.2009 addressed to the Accountant General, Assam which includes 37 numbers of posts of Lecturers and one post of Librarian in the same pay scale. The Governing Body, in its meeting held on 09.10.2009 had adopted the most of the Rules and Regulations of the State Government along with the AICTE and UGC Norms and Guidelines. The said meeting had also constituted and approved a Selection Committee for holding a recruitment process for filling up the post which were created vide the notification dated 20.08.2009. It has been stated that the said Selection Committee would be for selection to posts equivalent to Gazetted posts in the Government. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 12.12.2009 for various posts including the post of Lecturers in various disciplines. The said advertisement was issued by none other than the Director of Technical Education, Assam. The petitioners pertaining to the JIST who had offered their candidatures were selected and accordingly appointed vide order dated 04.08.2010 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Higher (Technical) Department on behalf of the JIST Society. It is the contention of the petitioners that all benefits under the AICTE, UGC including increments were given to the petitioners from the date of their appointments.

5. The controversy however had started with a notification dated 30.12.2016 issued by the Higher Education (Technical) Department, whereby the administrative control of the JIST was brought under the Government of Assam, Higher Education (Technical) Department. It has been notified that the College will thereafter come under the category of full-fledged Government En

      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