Gauhati High Court
Binapani Neog vs The Assam Power Distribution Company ... on 3 June, 2024
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010107512024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2828/2024
BINAPANI NEOG
W/O- LATE MOHENDRA KR. NEOG,
R/O- NA ALI, BOLIA GOHAIN PUKHURI PAR,
P.O- BOLIA GOHAIN PUKHURI, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 4 ORS
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR,
BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-01
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-01
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A)
PENSION
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-01
4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A)
PENSION
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-01
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
JORHAT ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
JORHAT
PIN-78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J PATOWARY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 03-06-2024
03.06.2024
Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.
K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the APDCL for the respondent nos.1, 2
and 5 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.3
and 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she had retired from service
as Accounts Officer, Jorhat Electrical Division-II, APDCL.
3. On retirement, the petitioner was paid retirement benefits in
terms of ROP rules, 2010. However, the petitioner claims that she later on came
to know that she is entitled to a higher pension amount in terms of ASEB
Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 which have been given retrospective effect from
01.04.2016. Therefore, the petitioner claims that she would be entitled to
revision of her last pay drawn on 31.03.2016 as per Rule 4(a) of the ASEB
Page No.# 3/4
Revised Pay Rules, 2017.
4. The petitioner claims that without revising her last pay, the
respondent authorities have revised her pension by applying Rule 32 of the ROP
Rules, 2017 and therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate direction upon the
respondents for revision of pay in terms of the last pay drawn which would be
calculated as per her last pay as on 31.03.2016.
5. At the outset the learned standing counsel for the APDCL has
produced a copy of the minutes of the JCC meeting held on 27.02.2024, and it
is projected that in the said meeting a resolution has been taken to provide the
benefit of revised pay scale as per ASEB Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 and in this
regard he has produced a copy of the said minutes.
6. It is submitted that although the petitioner is relying on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA 107/2023, wherein order
dated 22.03.2023 was passed.
7. Accordingly, it is submitted that as per his instructions the
respondent authorities have considered the claim of the petitioner in terms of
the ROP, 2017. He has further submitted, upon instructions, that the respondent
no.1 is only seeking liberty from the Court to disburse the arrear benefit which
may accrue the petitioner in five installments spread over a span of two
financial years. However, he submits that the decision on the entitlement of the
Page No.# 4/4
petitioner to the revised pay scale would be taken within a period of one month
from the date of producing a certified copy of this order.
8. In view of the statement made at the Bar by the learned
standing counsel for the APDCL, the Court is inclined to dispose of the writ
petition at the motion stage by providing that the competent authorities in the
APDCL shall take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of
revised pay scale as per the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 by considering the
entitlement of the petitioner as per her revised last pay drawn on 31.03.2016.
9. It is also provided that while disposing of the claim of the
petitioner, it would be open to the respondents to provide a definite time-line
within which they would disburse the arrear payment calculated to be due to
the petitioner. It would be also open to the respondents to comply with all codal
formalities as may be required for their purpose.
10. As the matter has been disposed of at the motion stage in such
terms as indicated above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the
Court, if she is still aggrieved.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
