Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Sri Jagannath Datta on 12 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010156172025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/353/2025
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110011.
2: THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
NARENGI
P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM 781027
3: THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE
BIVAR ROAD
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
PIN 79300
VERSUS
SRI JAGANNATH DATTA,
SON OF LATE JYOTISH CHANDRA DATTA, HOUSE.NO. 119, CHACHAL
PATH, VIP ROAD, SIX MILE GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781022.
2:THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
WEST BLOCK-VIII
SECTOR-1
RK PURAM
NEW DELHI 110066
3:THE REGISTRAR IN CHARGE
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL
(REGIONAL BENCH)
Page No.# 2/5
2ND FLOOR
ASSAM POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.
BEHIND ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS
DR. BK. KAKATI ROAD
REHABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 78000
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS BIJITA SARMA,
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Linked Case : WA/354/2025
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110011.
2: THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
NARENGI
POST OFFICE UDYAN VIHAR
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP - M
ASSAM-781027
3: THE DFPUTY CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE
BIVAR ROAD
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
PIN-793001.
VERSUS
MANABENDRA CHAKRABORTY AND ORS.
SON OF LATE MATHURA NATH CHAKRABORTY
HOUSE NO. 46
AVANTI ENCLAVE
SISHURAM CHOUDHURY PATH
KALAPAHAR
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT-KAMRUP M
ASSAM-781018
Page No.# 3/5
2:THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
WEST BLOCK VIII
SECTOR-1
R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI 110066
3:THE REGISTRAR IN CHARGE
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL
(REGIONAL BENCH)
2ND FLOOR
ASSAM POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.
BEHIND ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS
DR. B.K. KAKATI ROAD
REHABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 780008
------------
For the Petitioner/appellant(s) : Ms. Bijita Sarma, CGC
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, Advocate
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
12.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/Union of India
against the judgment dated 03.04.2024, passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 5517/2024, whereby the writ petition
filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the appellants were
directed to pay to the writ petitioner/respondent monthly remuneration
@ Rs. 48,000/- per month as also the arrear amount along with interest @
12% accrued thereon.
Page No.# 4/5
The respondent, after attaining the age of superannuation in the
year 2017, started getting pension @ 33,700/- per month. During his
retirement, he was re-employed as Consultant (Junior Accounts Officer)
on contractual basis at the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Guwahati, for a period of one year, vide engagement letter dated
01.09.2023 after obtaining the approval of the Chairman of the Tribunal,
New Delhi.
Under the terms of the contract, the respondent was to get a
consolidated fixed remuneration of Rs. 48,000/- per month but was not
entitled to any other perquisites. Accordingly, as per the terms of the
contract, he was being paid Rs. 48,000/- per month.
Later the remuneration was reduced on the pretext of there being in
existence an Office Memorandum dated 09.12.2020, which provided
that the fixed monthly amount shall be admissible, arrived at by
deducting the basic pension from the pay drawn at the time of
retirement. The amount of remuneration so fixed shall remain unchanged
for the term of the contract and there will be no annual
increment/percentage increase during the contract period.
This reduction of the monthly remuneration was challenged before
the learned Single Judge, who sustained the objection and observed
that since the contractual agreement provided that the respondent
would be paid remuneration @ Rs. 48,000/- per month and there being
no mention in the terms of the contractual engagement that the
remuneration of the respondent would be subject to deduction of his
basic pension, the terms of the agreement could not have been altered
Page No.# 5/5
by the employer/appellants unilaterally. The learned Single Judge also
observed that the appellants could not show the exemplar of such
deduction of basic pension from the fixed remuneration in case of any
other contractual employee engaged in any other Armed Forces
Tribunal across the country.
Though the learned counsel for the appellants/Union of India submits
that orally it was informed to the learned Single Judge that in all cases of
contractual engagement, the basic pension is deducted from the
monthly remuneration, but no instance of such deduction appears to
have been shown.
We would like to know, before disposing off this appeal, whether the
O.M. dated 09.12.2020 is being implemented and applied across the
board in cases of post-retirement contractual employment in the Armed
Forces Tribunals.
The learned Advocate for the appellants shall furnish the information
by way of an affidavit, which shall be filed by the next date.
Re-notify on 08.12.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
