Deben Chandra Medhi vs The Assam Electricity Grid ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4844 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010027032019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : WP(C)/916/2019

            DEBEN CHANDRA MEDHI
            S/O. LT. KANU RAM MEDHI, PRESENT ADDRESS- HOUSE NO.20, BYE LANE
            NO. 2, LAKHIMI NAGAR, (NEAR LAKHI MANDIR), P.O. BASISTHA,
            GUWAHATI-28, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD. AND 2 ORS.
            REGD. OFFICE- 1ST FLOOR, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-
            781001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

            2:THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

            ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD. REGD. OFFICE- 1ST
            FLOOR
            BIJULI BHAWAN
            PALTAN BAZAR
            GUWAHATI-781001
            REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

            3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR)

             I/C. ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION
             BIJULI BHAWAN
             PALTAN BAZAR
             GUWAHATI-781001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J I BORBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AEGCL

Page No.# 2/4

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 08-12-2022

Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kotoky, learned counsel for the respondents in the AEGCL.

2. The petitioner Sri Deben Chandra Medhi, who was a Manager in the respondent AEGCL was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service by the order dated 13.08.2008 pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. The order of penalty dated 13.08.2008 was assailed by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1837/2009, which was given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 wherein the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to pass an order to be consistent with the observations made in the said judgment. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment and order dated 25.11.2014, it had been provided as extracted:

"[15] However, referring to the allegations under charge Nos.2 and 3, the Inquiry Officer taking note of the same evidence and same findings in respect of charge No.1 held the petitioner guilty of charge Nos.2 and 3. Once it is held that the petitioner is not guilty of charge No.1, the other 2(two) charges automatic ally fall through and thus, the Inquiry Officer independent of the findings recorded in charge No.1 could not have held that the charge Nos.2 and 3 stood established against the petitioner."

3. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 makes it discernible that it was the view of the Court that as charge No. 1 was found to be unacceptable, charge Nos. 2 and 3 also fall through. By the resultant appellate order, on being remanded back, the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was upheld and the appeal was rejected. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No. 5268/2015 was instituted which was given a final Page No.# 3/4

consideration by the order dated 08.02.2018 by which the order of compulsory retirement dated 13.08.2008 on the petitioner was set aside. In the order dated 08.02.2018, it was further provided as extracted:

"The Apex Court further observed that in a long line of cases, the Apex Court has consistently taken the view that the relief of reinstatement and back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though the termination of employee is held to be in contravention of the prescribed procedure. In the present case, though the impugned office order dated 13.8.2008 inflicting the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been set aside, the respondent authorities have been given the liberty to take a fresh decision on the enquiry report keeping in mind the observation made in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed in WP(C) No.1837/2009. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to pass any order for back wages. The respondent authorities will take a decision with regard to whether the petitioner would be entitled to back wages and other consequential benefits, depending upon the decision to be made by them."

4. From the provisions of the afore-extracted portion of the order dated 08.02.2018, it is discernible that upon setting aside the order of compulsory retirement it was accepted that the petitioner would be reinstated back in the service but as regards the back wages to be paid, the authorities were given the liberty to take a decision of their own keeping in mind the observation made in para 15 and 19 of the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 in WP(C) No. 1837/2009.

5. Consequent thereof, the office order dated 19.05.2018 had been passed wherein it had been provided as extracted:

"Whereas regarding back wages, it is decided that the period of compulsory retirement, up to the date of his reinstatement, Sri Deben Ch. Medhi, is allowed to draw only the pension as he was allowed vide office order No AEGCL/ACT/PEN/11400/15/677/4 dated 18.12.2015 and after reinstatement he will be allowed to draw the salary w.e.f. the date of his joining as per admissible Rule of Company."

6. A reading of the afore-extracted portion of the order dated 19.05.2018 makes it discernible that for the purpose of back wages, the authorities have Page No.# 4/4

held that whatever pension was paid to the petitioner for the period between the order dated 13.08.2008 by which he was given the punishment of compulsory retirement and the subsequent reinstatement in service would be treated to be his back wages. The said order is assailed in this writ petition by raising an issue that for said period the petitioner having been paid his pension and now thereafter he is again paid pension, one person cannot be paid two different pensions. The said submission would be unacceptable inasmuch as, although for the period from 13.08.2008 up to the date of reinstatement, it was initially a pension that was paid but by virtue of the order dated 08.02.2018 in WP(C) No. 5268/2015, wherein there was a requirement to take a decision on the back wages payable to the petitioner, a decision had been taken that the earlier pension would now be construed to be the back wages.

7. As the earlier pension paid to the petitioner from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement is provided to be the back wages, no further interference is required in this writ petition. The petitioner would now be continued to be subjected the pension that he is otherwise paid and entitled under the law and the provisions in this order shall in no way affect his present pension.

Writ petition stands closed as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant