Gauhati High Court
Smt. Krishna Deb vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 2 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010218852022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6887/2022
SMT. KRISHNA DEB
D/O- LT. KANDORPO DEB, SOUTH HAIBARGAON, P.O. HAIBARGAON, P.S.
NAGAON SADAR, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE DY. SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT.
ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
NAGAON DISTRICT
NAGAON
ASSAM- 782001
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DE
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
02.11.2022
Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
though the petitioner had retired while working as an In-charge Revenue
Sheristadar on 30.04.2022, the petitioner's pension is being calculated as per
the pay scale of Supervisory Assistant and not as per the pay scale of Revenue
Sheristadar, vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 and other consequential
orders.
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner, who was holding the post of
Supervisory Assistant, took part in the selection process for appointment to the
post of Revenue Sheristadar, under the amalgamated establishment of the
Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. Out of the 11 (eleven) candidates, the petitioner
secured the 2nd position in the Select List dated 28.06.2016, while one Smti.
Kalyani Baruah secured the 1st position. The petitioner was thereafter appointed
to the post of Revenue Sheristadar, vide Notification dated 17.02.2021. Smti.
Kalyani Baruah was not appointed, though she secured the 1 st position as it was
alleged that she did not have the required educational criteria, i.e. Higher
Secondary Pass.
3. Smti. Kalyani Baruah challenged the appointment of the petitioner, vide
WP(C) No.1153/2021 by taking a stand that she had the required educational
qualification of Higher Secondary Pass. This Court disposed of WP(C)
Page No.# 3/5
No.1153/2021, by setting aside the Notification dated 17.02.2021, by which the
petitioner had been appointed to the post of Revenue Sheristadar. Though
Paragraph 24(a) of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1153/2021
states that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisory Assistant
was set aside and quashed, it has been stated at the bar that the words
"Supervisory Assistant" reflected therein should be read as "Revenue
Sheristadar".
4. The petitioner's case is that in Paragraph 24(i) of the order dated
25.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1153/2021, this Court also observed that till a
Revenue Sheristadar was selected, it would be permissible for the Deputy
Commissioner, Nagaon to continue with the present arrangement, by which the
petitioner was continuing as Revenue Sheristadar.
As stated earlier, the petitioner retired from service 1 (one) month later, i.e.
30.04.2022.
5. The prayer of the petitioner is that he should be given pension in terms of
the last pay given to the petitioner as Revenue Sheristadar and not as per the
pay scale applicable to the petitioner's substantive post, i.e. Supervisory
Assistant.
6. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2, Mr. D. Borah,
learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and R. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 submit that the petitioner has been given the pay scale of
Revenue Sheristadar, as he was initially appointed to the said post. However, the
order appointing the petitioner as Revenue Sheristadar having been set aside
Page No.# 4/5
and quashed, he cannot claim payment of pension in relation to a post he is not
entitled to hold.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The petitioner's appointment to the post of Revenue Sheristadar, vide
Notification dated 17.02.2021 was put to challenge in this Court, vide WP(C)
No.1153/2021. This Court set aside and quashed the petitioner's appointment as
Revenue Sheristadar, vide Notification dated 17.02.2021. This Court further
observed that it would be permissible for the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to
continue with the present arrangement with the petitioner continuing as
Revenue Sheristadar, till an incumbent was selected to the post of Revenue
Sheristadar.
9. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in WP(C)
No.1153/2021, which is at paragraph 24(a), 24(b) and 24(i) is reproduced
below :
"24) Thus, the reliefs granted is summarized as follows:-
a. The impugned notification under Memo no. GAG(B).165/2020/107 dated
17.02.2021 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Assam, General Administration Department, thereby appointing the respondent
no. 5 on promotion to the post of Supervisory Assistant is set aside and
quashed.
b. The Minutes of meeting dated 08.02.2021 of the Departmental Selection
Committee for selection of Revenue Sheristadar in the establishment of the
Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon is also set aside and quashed.
............................
...........................
i. For the interregnum period till an incumbent is selected and appointed within
Page No.# 5/5
timelines as indicated herein before, it would be permissible for the Deputy
Commissioner, Nagaon to continue with the present arrangement with
respondent no. 5 continuing as Revenue Sheristadar in his establishment."
10. As stated earlier, though the words "Supervisory Assistant" has been used
in paragraph 24(a) of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in WP(C)
No.1153/2021, the said words have to be construed to be "Revenue
Sheristadar", in terms of the pleadings and the submission of the learned
counsels for the parties. As such, the petitioner cannot claim to be holding the
post of Revenue Sheristadar in a substantive capacity, in terms of the judgment
of this Court in WP(C) No.1153/2021. As the petitioner's substantive post on the
date of his retirement was Supervisory Assistant and not Revenue Sheristadar,
the petitioner's pension would have to be calculated on the basis of the pay
scale given to Supervisory Assistant and not the pay scale of the Revenue
Sheristadar.
11. There being no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
