Disposed

Ratul Hati Kakoty v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2019WP(C)/5139/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Upper Division Assistant, challenged a communication regarding deficiencies in his pension proposal due to alleged unauthorized retrospective upgradation. The Court disposed of the petition on identical terms as a previously referred settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on identical terms as WP(C) No. 3570 of 2016; directed to re-submit pension proposal and issue PPO.

Ratul Hati Kakoty Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010036332017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5139/2017

¶5

1:RATUL HATI KAKOTY

¶6

S/O. LT. SURJYA HATI KAKOTY, VILL. MORAN DIKHARI NO.1, P.O. DIKHARI, P.S. MORAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. PIN-785675.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 6 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-785675.

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶13

5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶14

6:THE FINANCE and ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX

Page No.# 2/3

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-06.

7:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M U MONDAL

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAMR-4,5

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 08-03-2019

¶25

Heard Mr M U Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S P Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr K Nayak, learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos, 4, 5 and 6. Mr R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appears on behalf of respondent No. 7.

¶26

Petitioner served as Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and, thereafter, as Upper Division Assistant (UDA) in the Khowang Government Aided High School in the district of Dibrugarh. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as UDA on 29.09.2012. A communication dated 22.02.2017 was issued by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Directorate of Pension, Assam, indicating deficiencies in the pension proposal of the petitioner for which pensionary benefit could not be finalized. The deficiencies pointed out related to unauthorized retrospective upgradation to the post of UDA leading to alleged drawal of excess revised salary.

¶27

This is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶28

Notice in this case was issued on 25.08.2017.

¶29

Though this case is pending before this Court for more than a year, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶30

Today, when the matter is called upon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issue was raised in WP(C) No. 3570 of 2016 ( Shahabuddin Ahmed –Vs- State of Assam), which was

¶31

Page No.# 3/3

¶32

referred to the National Lok Adalat on 12.11.2016 and settled in the following terms:-

¶33

“ All the parties are present. On the basis of the letter dated 10.11.2016, clarifying that the upgradation of the petitioner was done with the concurrence/clarification of the Finance Department, it is proposed that the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup shall re-submit the pension proposal of the petitioner to the Director of the Pension within 1 (one) week from today. Thereafter, the Director of Pension, Assam shall settled the pension and issue PPO in favour of the petitioner within a period of 1 (one) month after receipt of the proposal from the Inspector of School, Kamrup. The petitioner is agreeable to such proposal made by the respondent.

¶34

Accordingly, this case is disposed of in terms of the above proposal.

¶35

Copy of the communication dated 10.11.2016 is kept on record.”

¶36

Mr Mondal further submits that following such settlement, WP(C) No. 3413 of 2016 ( Satyaban Talukdar –Vs- State of Assam) was disposed of in the above terms and, therefore, prays for an identical order.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the prayer made.

¶38

In view of above, present writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 12.11.2016, passed in WP(C) 3570 of 2016 as extracted above.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Ratul Hati Kakoty v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratul Hati Kakoty v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pan Parag India Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Cachar Native Joint Stock Company Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Harmohan Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Syed Sahnawaz Sarif Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pranita Deka Vs Bhabesh Deka