Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Smita Choudhury, D/o. Hirendra Ch. Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary, To The Government Of Assam, Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court considered that psp must be included in pay calculations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 19) |
| 2. the court directed appropriate pay fixation including psp to treat petitioners equitably. (Para 10 , 15 , 32) |
| 3. court emphasized prior decisions affirming inclusion of psp in pay structure. (Para 17 , 29) |
| 4. finalized directives to revise pay structure accordingly. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)
Heard Mr. T Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat and Mr. P Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of Finance Department, Government of Assam.
2. The three petitioners herein have approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not condoning the delay in exercising the option under Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Revision of pay) Rules 2017 (for short, ‘the ROP Rules of 2017’) as well as also not providing the benefits of the Principal Seat Pay (for short, ‘the
Principal Seat Pay must be included in the calculation of basic pay for employees, ensuring equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that salary fixation must adhere to statutory rules, resolving errors related to initial pay and advance increments, ensuring equitable adjustments without undue recovery demands.
Equal pay for equal work is mandated when the employer recognizes parity between roles, as upheld by constitutional provisions.
In the matters of this kind the approach is not go entirely on the issue of the lapses and delay but to examine the merits. It is with that approach that this Court has required the Opposite Parties ....
Recovery of excess salary can be enforced against an employee if they knowingly received double benefits under different pay structures, despite it being a result of erroneous pay fixation.
The Chief Justice has exclusive authority to set pay and service conditions for court employees under Article 229(2), and financial constraints cannot justify the refusal of approval for such determi....
Service Law - Scale of pay - In view of amendment of ROP,1999 by Fifth Amendment insofar as our case is concerned, this subsequent amendment under Eighteenth Amendment Rules did not have any further ....
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual benefits from 21.04.2004 under 5th CPC upgradation; prior judgments in rem mandate parity despite delay in ....
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
