Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Dharitri Deka, Wife Of Sri Bitumoni Nath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr M P Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms K Phukan, the learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Mr R Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Ms S Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 and Mr T R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner, herein, has approached this Court, seeking appropriate writ, direction and order to set aside the communications dated 11.04.2022, 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and further seeking appropriate directions to the effect that the petitioner should be paid her salary, in terms with the communications dated 24.08.2018, 21.08.2019 and 16.07.2019.
3. To ascertain the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts, which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.
4. The Gauhati High Court had issued an advertisement on 12.06.2015, calling for filling up of 191 vacancies of Stenographer Grade-III, for the district judiciary of Assam, in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,200-20,200 +GP 2900 (PB-2) plus other
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.
The court upheld the authority's reduction of the petitioner's pay due to prior erroneous fixation, confirming compliance with the Central Civil Services Rules while quashing the recovery order.
The downgraded pay scale of the Inspector under ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 was not applicable to the petitioner, and the objection raised by the respondent No. 6 to the claims made by the petitioner fo....
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 ruled that pay fixation must adhere to applicable rules, and claims for parity must consider distinct recruitment modes.
The court upheld the valid reduction of pay under applicable regulations while dismissing claims of procedural unfairness in pay fixation processes.
The existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 is the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay and that it can only be interpreted as the pay applicable to the post payable to the Government servan....
The government is not obligated to follow Pay Commission recommendations, and employees have no vested right to specific pay scales unless clear arbitrariness or illegality is established.
The court established that pay discrepancies between senior and junior employees must be rectified to ensure equitable compensation as per the applicable rules.
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
