Disposed

Ziauddin Munwarul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC10 May 2019WP(C)/5281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought notional benefits of promotion given after superannuation. The court permitted the petitioner to file a representation with supporting documents, directing the authorities to consider the claim and pass an order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file a representation for reconsideration of promotion claim within 10 days; authorities directed to pass an order within 4 weeks.

Ziauddin Munwarul Hoque Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010122612012

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5281/2012

¶5

1:ZIAUDDIN MUNWARUL HOQUE

¶6

S/O LT. JILLUL HOQUE R/O BONKONWAR PATH, HOUSE NO. 1, KHARGHULI GUWAHATI-781004, P.S. FATASIL, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL A DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

3:SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED FOR SELECTION OF ACS OFFICERS FROM SENIOR GRADE-II TO SENIOR GRADE-I REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRJ RAHMAN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 10-05-2019

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent.

¶19

Page No.# 2/4

¶20

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that he had superannuated from service of the Government of Assam as an Assam Civil Service Senior Grade-II Officer while holding the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam as Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department.

¶21

It is projected that the said post was otherwise proposed referred for NC Hills Senior Grade-I office. It is further projected that the petitioner was due to be promoted in the year 2010 and accordingly in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998 the authorities had undertaken the said exercise.

¶22

It is projected that there were 23 vacancies to be filled up, however, the authorities proposed to fill up the 17 vacancies and in the DPC meeting held on 08.09.2011, the rest of 34 eligible officers were recommended to be promoted to the ACS Senior Grade-I for the year 2010. Accordingly, vide notification dated 29.12.2011 names of 17 officers for the year 2010. In this connection it is projected that while issuing the said affidavit dated 29.12.2011, the officers whose name appeared in Sl. No. 6 and 9 was not incorporated in the said notification and the decision in respect of them was kept in sealed cover.

¶23

In this point, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from the notification dated 29.12.2011, it appears that the promotions vide notification dated 29.12.2011 was given with retrospective effect from 01.06.2010, this would establish that the promotions were made against the vacancies arising out of 31.05.2010 and therefore the vacancies which had arisen for the remaining period of the year i.e. from 01.06.2010 to 31.12.2010 were left out.

¶24

It is further submitted that in the list of the recommended 34 officers, the name of the petitioner stood at Sl. No.26, but as the officer whose name appeared in the Sl. No.18, 20, 21 and 22 were not recommended as decision in respect of them were kept in sealed cover, the actual position of the petitioner would be notionally upgraded to 16, 22 and accordingly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the vacancies were arisen in the year 2010 was taken into consideration though was very likely that the petitioner would have got his promotion as on 31.12.2010.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Hence, it is submitted that as the petitioner has already superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.12.2011, the authorities are required to examine his case to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to be promoted from ACS senior Grade-II to ACS Senior Grade-I department for the year 2010 and if the authorities find that the promotion was due to the petitioner he should be given notional benefits against such promotion.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate has contested this application by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, 3 and 6 and has submitted that after the Selection Board had decided to grant retrospective promotion to various incumbents and, as such, the name which appeared in the Sl. No. 7, 15 and 17 of the selection list for the year 2010 though retired prior to the holding of the selection made on 08.09.2011, were included in the select list and it is submitted that for further vacancies arisen in the year 2011-12 none of the officers in consideration zone were given the benefit of retrospective promotion.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, it appears from the materials available on record, specially the various note and orders of retirement annexed as Annexure5 series to the writ petition would disclose that as on 01.06.2010 to 31.12.2010 there are 5 vacant post of Senior Grade-I on superannuation:- (1) Dipak Kumar Goswami, ACS, (2) Sri Tilak Ch. Kalita, ACS, (3) Sri Mrigendra Kalita, ACS, (4) Md. Munibar Rahman, ACS, (5) Sri Caral Narzary, ACS and one Dhrubjyoti Hazarika, ACS in respect of which an affidavit-in reply has been annexed as Annexure-4.

¶29

In view of the said projection made by the writ petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner had already superannuated from service on 31.12.2011, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam (A), Department to enable the said authorities to consider the representation for promotion for the petitioner from ACS (Senior grade-II) to ACS (Senior Grade-I) as on 31.12.2010. In support of his claim, the petitioner can produce all the documents on which he intends to rely. The said representation may be filed within a period of 10(ten) days along with the certified copy of this order.

¶30

On such representation being submitted, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam (A), Department shall consider the claim made by the petitioner in his

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

representation and pass a speaking order within 4(four) weeks on date of receipt of such representation.

¶33

It is further submitted that if the authorities find that the petitioner was entitled to being promoted as on 31.12.2010 or 31.12.2011, the petitioner has superannuated, the petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits of such promotion from the effective date of such promotion.

¶34

It is needless to say that the order passed against the petitioner shall be communicated to him within a reasonable time.

¶35

Rule is made absolute in terms of the said order.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

No cost.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Ziauddin Munwarul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziauddin Munwarul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Promod Malia Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Tanil Dutta Vs the Oil India Ltd. and 3 Ors.

All Assam Trained Home Guards Association and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jagadish Chandra Nath Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Buddhadip Gogoi Vs Dr Narayan Bordoloi and 2 Ors.

Mohd. Saimuddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.