Dismissed

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Dec 2018WP(C)/4798/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging discriminatory compensation, petitioners claimed they were not entitled to regular scale pay from the start unlike later appointees. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the retrospective application of a 2004 Office Memorandum inapplicable and finding no merit in challenging appointments made decades ago based on compassionate grounds. A compact structure wi

What the court decided

AI extract

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010009892013

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4798/2013

¶5

1:PRABHAT CH BORA and 12 ORS. S/O- LT. DUTRAM BORAH, VILL.- PRAMILAGHAR, P.O.- SIMALUGURI, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶6

2: BIPUL CH. BORAH S/O- LT. BIPIN CH. BORAH VILL.- SELALI P.O.- JAMUGURI DIST.- NAGAON.

¶7

3: RINA BORAH D/O- LT. ANANTA BORAH VILL. and P.O.- CHAPARMUKH DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶8

4: HARAGOBINDA SAIKIA S/O- LT. KAILASH CHANDRA SAIKIA VILL.- DHING CHARIALI P.O.- DHING DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶9

5: JYOTI PRASAD NATH S/O- LT. JOGESWAR NATH VILL.- AMLATA P.O.- PUB GUIMARI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶10

6: PREMANANDA LASKAR S/O- LT. PROMOD LASKAR VILL.- ATIKAMPUR P.O.- KMARUP

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 7: MANJU KUMAR CHOUDHURY VILL.- DAKSHINPAT BHAKATGAON P.O.- DAKSHIN CHANGSAKI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 8: MANTU BASUMATARY S/O- LT. MANESWAR BASUMATARY VILL.- BARBARI P.O.- CHAPANALA DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 9: JYOTI PRASAD HAZARIKA S/O- LT. MNAESWAR HAZARIKA VILL.- BARBARI P.O.- CHAPANALA DIST.- NAGAON.

¶13

10: NIRUPAMA BORAH C/O- LT. HOMESWAR BORAH VILL.- MAJARATI P.O.- TETELISARA DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 11: HEMANTA KR. NATH S/O- LT. MAHENDRA NATH VILL.- AMTALA P.O.- PUB GUIMARI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶14

12: DIPAK CH. NATH S/O- LT. JUNARAM NATH VILL.- AMTALA P.O.- PUB GUIMARI DIST.- NAGAON.

¶15

13: CHANDIKA DEVI S/O- LT. RAMESH NATH VILL.- DARANGIAL NATH P.O.- KAMRUP DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶19

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NAGAON DIST. CIRCLE NAGAON ASSAM. 4:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶23

Date : 04-12-2018

¶24

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶25

Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department.

¶26

All the petitioners herein were appointed on compassionate ground as per their respective orders of appointment, which are annexed as Annexure-A series to the writ

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

petition. The appointments were invariably made sometime between the years 1995 and 2001. All the appointment letters specifically state that the appointments were on compassionate ground and that they would be entitled to a stipend of Rs.900/- per month or as determined by the Government from time to time and thereafter be sent for a Basic Elementary Training course. It is further stated that during the training period, the appointees will be paid the monthly stipend of Rs.900/-.

¶29

The appointment letters give the indication that upon successful completion of the Basic Elementary Training course, they will be paid the regular scale of pay. It is stated that in fact, all the petitioners having successfully completed the Basic Elementary Training Course are being paid the regular scale of pay. In this writ petition, by relying upon a subsequent order of the authorities dated 13.05.2010 when compassionate appointments were given to some other persons as Assistant Teachers, a regular scale of pay was paid from the day one. By referring to the said Office Memorandum, the petitioners seek to make out a case of discrimination to the extent that some similarly situated persons were given the scale of pay from the day one even though they were appointed on compassionate ground, but in case of the petitioners, they were initially paid a stipend of Rs.900/- per month and only upon completion of the Basic Elementary Training Course, they were paid the regular scale of pay.

¶30

Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department refers to the affidavit in opposition of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam wherein in paragraph-6 it is stated that the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department had issued an Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2004, which provides that in respect of compassionate appointment also, the regular scale of pay would be paid to the concerned candidates from the date of initial appointment. In the affidavit, it is also stated that the provision of the Office Memorandum of 05.07.2004 would be prospective in nature. Accordingly, it is the contention of the respondent authorities that the petitioners having been appointed prior to 05.07.2004, they are not covered by the Office Memorandum.

¶31

In view of such stand of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by relying on the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2004, the Court is of the view that the case for discrimination being sought to be made out by the petitioners by referring to a subsequent appointment order dated 13.05.2010 would be inapplicable in the present case. Further, it is

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

also taken note of that as the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground, the very basis for such appointment is to enable the concerned persons to overcome the immediate financial hardship being caused by the death of the bread earner of the family. If the petitioners could successfully overcome the financial difficulties at the time when they were appointed by receiving the amount of Rs.900/- per month, the Court see no reason as to why at this stage after a period of fifteen years, a claim can be entertained that they ought to have been paid the regular scale of pay.

¶34

For both the aforesaid reasons, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipika Devi Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dr. Mrs. Vardhini Bhattacharjee Vs Vice-Chancellor, Indira Gandhi

Smti Kalpana Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mrs. Malaya Bhattacharyya and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dhubri Law College Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.