Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 April, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010071482022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2790/2022
BHABENDRA KUMAR BAISHYA AND 7 ORS
S/O- LATE JIBAN CH. BAISHYA
R/O- DALIBARI
P.O- DADARA
DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM
2: DINA NATH SAIKIA
S/O- KESHORAM SAIKIA
VILLAGE- BARPATGAON
P.O- GHORAMARI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
3: SUREN DAS
S/O-LATE SORU NATH DAS
R/O- VILLAGE- BARLAH (SHREEHATI)
P.O- HALOGAON
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
4: NAREN CH. TALUKDAR
S/O- LATE BHUBANESWAR TALUKDAR
VILL AND P.O- UPARHALI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
5: AIKAN BARMAN
W/O- LATE AMBIKA BARMAN
VILL. AND P.O- BALIKURIA
DIST - NALBARI
ASSAM
6: TULSI BORA
W/O- LATE PONA RAM BORA
Page No.# 2/4
VILL.-HATINGA RAMPUR
P.O- HATINGA
DIST - SONITPUR
ASSAM
7: PANKAJ CH. LODH
S/O- LATE NALINI LODH
VILL.- BHOTPARA
P.O-ALI
DIST - SONITPUR
ASSAM
8: DAMIYANTI BALA DAS
W/O- LATE NARESWAR DAS
VILL. AND P.O- DEGHALI
DIST - NALBARI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
JURIPAR
SIX MILE
GUWAHATI-37
4:THE DIRECTOR
OF PENSION
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 29/04/2022
Heard Mr. M. Islam, leaned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
N.K. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 being the
authorities in the P &RD department, Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the
Finance Department and Mr. J.K. Parajuli, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4.
2. The petitioners herein had earlier instituted WP(C) 2076/2013 inter alia
claiming that the fixation of pay during their service tenure at the rate of
Rs.566/- per month was correct fixation of pay and therefore the recovery that
was sought to have been made on the premises that the correct scale of pay
ought to have been Rs. 494/- was incorrect.
3. In paragraph-14 of the judgment dated 14.08.2013 in WP(C) 2076/2013 it
has been held that the respondent has not been able to place any materials on
record to show that the fixation of Rs.566/- per month w.e.f. July, 1981 was
erroneous or that it was fixed on some incorrect principles. Against the
judgment dated 14.08.2013 in WP(C) 2076/2013, a writ appeal was filed being
MC No.482/2014 in WA Serial No.219322. By the said order the writ appeal
stood dismissed, meaning thereby that the conclusion of the learned Single
judge in the judgment was upheld. Some of the petitioners of WP(C) 2076/2013
instituted WP(C) 7793/2016 claiming that pension should be evaluated on the
basis of scale of pay which ought to have been Rs.566/- per month. By the
judgment dated 09.08.2017 WP(C) 7793/2016 was allowed directing the
respondent authorities to compute the pension payable to the petitioners
Page No.# 4/4
therein by taking the scale of pay of Rs.566/- per month.
4. The petitioners in this petition claims parity with the other petitioners of
WP(C) 2076/2013 and therefore are also entitled for a similar order. Mr. N.K.
Debnath and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents to examine the
aspect and inform the Court on the returnable date whether the same order can
be passed in this petition.
5. It is taken note of that all the petitioners herein may not have been the
petitioners in WP(C) 2076/2013 and some of them were petitioners in other
similar writ petitions wherein, the same order was passed.
6. List on 09.05.2022.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
