Gauhati High Court
Jiten Chandra Hazarika vs The Assam Electricity Grid ... on 17 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010089252023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2483/2023
JITEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE BIDYA DHAR HAZARIKA,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 29,
BELTOLA, LAKHIMI PATH, BYLANE- SUGATA PATH,
GUWAHATI, PIN- 781028.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN,
PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001.
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ( F AND A)
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD.
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD.
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER
UPPER ASSAM T AND T ZONE
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD.
NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AEGCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 17-05-2023
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. N. Mahanta, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned standing counsel, Assam
Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd. (AEGCL) appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner herein, was an employee of the AEGCL and he retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. forenoon of 31-03-2016. As per the
notification dated 12-12-2017 issued by the APDCL covering the cases of the employees
of all the three units created after bifurcation of the ASEB including the AEGCL, the
revised pay scale will be applicable in case of those employees who were in service on 31-
03-2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 01-04-2016. The petitioner's case is
that he was in service on 31-03-2016, therefore, would be entitled to the benefits of the
revised pay rules, 2017 as notified by the OM dated 12-12-2017, which has been denied
to him.
Mr. Choudhury has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the
learned Single Judge rendered on 03-11-2022 in connection with W.P.(C) No. 1607/2020
wherein a similar issued was decided by holding that the employee who was in service on
Page No.# 3/4
31-03-2016 would be entitled to the benefit of revised pay rules, 2017.
Mr. S. Kataki, on the other hand, submits that the judgment and order dated 03-11-
2022 has been taken in an appeal before the Division Bench, which is pending disposal.
The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, fairly submitted that there is no
stay order operating in respect of the judgment and order dated 03-11-2022.
The operative part of the judgment and order dated 03-11-2022 would be relevant
in this case and therefore, is extracted here-in-below:-
"20. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules,
2017, more particularly, Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 4[a] and Rule 32[1][a] & [b] together,
this Court is of the unhesitant view that the petitioner who was in service on
31.03.2016 and who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation
also on 31.03.2016, cannot be categorized and bracketed in the category of
existing pensioner on 31.03.2016 as he acquired the status of pensioner only on
and from 01.04.2016. In such view of the matter, the benefits under the Revised
Pay Rules, 2017 cannot be worked out by resorting to Rule 32[1][a] & [b] of the
Revised Pay Rules, 2017 but his entitlements are to be worked out in terms of the
provisions laid down in Rule 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Rule 4[a] has
made the revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to an
employee who was in service on 31.03.2016 and the petitioner falls in that
category of employee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent
authorities shall have to work out the entitlements of the petitioner as pensioner
under different heads like pension, Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P.], Death -
cum- Retirement Gratuity, leave encashment benefits, etc. and if after such
exercise, the petitioner is found entitled for an enhanced amount that what had
been worked out by the Office Order no. ASEB/PLT/438/1979/268 dated
31.03.2016 and/or by any exercise by resorting Rule 32[1][a]&[b] of the Revised
Pay Rules, 2017, the same should be disbursed to the petitioner in an expeditious
manner. It is observed that the entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed
within 6 [six] weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by
the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2."
Having regard to the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
Page No.# 4/4
decision rendered in the case of W.P.(C) No. 1607/2020, this Court is of the unhesitant
opinion that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
rendered in W.P.(C) No. 1607/2020. I have also perused the order dated 22-03-2023
passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 107/2023 and find that no stay order
suspending the operation of the judgment and order dated 03-11-2022 has been passed.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of by holding that
petitioner's case is covered under the judgment dated 03-11-2022 passed in connection
with W.P.(C) No. 1607/2020. Therefore, he be extended the benefit of revised pay Rules
of 2017.
However, in view of the observation made in the final paragraph of the order dated
22-03-2023 passed by the Division Bench on 22-03-2023, it is made clear that so as to
avail the benefit under this order, the writ petitioner would give a undertaking to the
effect that if the judgment and order dated 03-11-2022 is set aside by a superior Court,
then in that event, he would be open to refund of the excess amount paid to him on the
strength of the present order.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
