Disposed

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. v. the Gauhati University and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2021WP(C)/4122/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a higher pay scale granted to a Technical Assistant. The court took note of a committee's 2014 recommendations regarding pay scales and directed the University to place the committee's observations before the Executive Council for a final decision before the petitioner retired. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The Registrar Gauhati University directed to place committee observations before the Executive Council for final decision on the pay scale issue.

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. Vs the Gauhati… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010017472015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4122/2015

¶5

GAGAN CHAUDHURY and 2 ORS S/O LT. GHANASHYAM DEKA, QTR. NO.7, SARAIGHAT COLONY, G.U. CAMPUS, GHY-14, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶6

2: TAPAN CH. MAHANTA S/O LT. CHANDRA KANTA MAHANTA VILL. NABURKA SATRA P.O. KSHUDRA DIMU P.S. RANGIA OUT POST DIMU DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶7

3: JAGADISH CH. GOSWAMI S/OLT. KANAK CH GOSWAMI QTR. NO.12 SARAIGHAT COLONY G.U. CAMPUS GHY-14 KAMRUP METRO ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY and 6 ORS

¶10

REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR, GHY-14, ASSAM

¶11

2:THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/9

¶13

3:THE RECTOR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM 4:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM 5:THE DY. REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM 6:THE TREASURER GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM 7:DWIPEN BARUAH @ DIPEN BARUAH TECHNICAL ASSTT. DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSAM 8:GAUHATI UNIVERSITY WORKMEN'S UNION GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GHY-14 ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R SARMA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P K KALITAR-7

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Page No.# 3/9

ORDER

06.12.2021

Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the authorities under the Gauhati University and Mr. PK Kalita, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.7.

¶21

The respondent No.7 Sri Dipen Baruah was appointed as a Technical Assistant in the Geography Department of the Gauhati University by the order dated 31.07.1992 of the Registrar at a scale of pay of Rs.1375-30-1435-401595-EB-40-1634-50-1885-EB-50-2035-60-2395-80-2875-100-3375/- plus other allowances as admissible under the Gauhati University Rules.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the fixation of his salary in the pay scale beginning Rs.1375, the petitioner submitted representations before the Registrar Gauhati University taking the stand that other Technical Assistants were appointed in the Geography Department of the Gauhati University at a pay scale of Rs.1475-401635- 50- 1735- EB- 50- 2035- EB- 60- 2395- 80- 2875- 100- 3575/-, which was a higher scale than that was provided to the petitioner. To substantiate the same, the petitioner also relies upon some earlier orders of appointment in respect of another Technical Assistant Sri Jitendra Baishya who was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.670-35-845-EB-35-1030-EB-40-1500/- per month, which is stated to be the pre-revised scale equivalent to pay beginning Rs.1475/-.

¶23

Page No.# 4/9

¶24

Representations were also submitted before the Vice Chancellor of the Gauhati University. The representations were given a consideration and the result thereof was that the Executive Council of the Gauhati University in its resolution No.2000/14/110 dated 08.07.2000 and No.2000/18/146 dated 30.09.2000 and as approved by the Vice Chancellor of the Gauhati University dated 18.05.2001, the respondent No.7 Dipen Baruah was allowed the pay scale beginning Rs.1475 instead of the pay scale beginning Rs.1375/- per month. The same was ordered by the Deputy Registrar (Admn.) dated 21.05.2001.

¶25

The present petitioner was also appointed as a Grade C Laboratory Assistant in the scale of pay beginning Rs.1375/-. Being aggrieved by the higher scale of pay allowed to respondent No.7, the petitioner also submitted representations before the Registrar Gauhati University as well as the Vice Chancellor Gauhati University. In response to the representations submitted by the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor had constituted a Committee to examine the re-designation of the Technical Assistants as Senior Technical Assistant. The aforesaid issue had arisen, inasmuch as, the prescribed scale of pay of Technical Assistants was beginning Rs.1375/- per month, whereas the prescribed scale of pay of Senior Technical Assistants was beginning Rs.1475/- per month. The said Committee comprised of the following:

¶26

“1. The Dean, Faculty of Technology, G.U.

¶27

The Dean, Faculty of Science, G.U.

¶28

The Head, Deptt. of Instrumentation & USIC, G.U.

¶29

The Treasurer, G.U.

¶30

The Dy. Registrar, G.U.

¶31

Page No.# 5/9

¶32

6. The Registrar, G.U.”

¶33

The Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor in its meeting dated 13.03.2014 had deliberated upon the issue of scale of pay applicable to a Technical Assistants and that of Senior Technical Assistants and also on the issue as to whether the respondent No.7 having been appointed as Technical Assistants would be entitled to a scale of pay that would otherwise be applicable to a senior Technical Assistant.

¶34

The observations of the Committee recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 13.03.2014 is extracted as below:

¶35

“As observed from the records (schedule of pay in the Financial estimates for the year 1992-93, schedule of pay in the Financial estimates for the year 1991-92 & recommendations of the CPC-1990) there are two category of posts-(i) Sr.Technical Assistant in the scale of pay Rs.670-1315 (Revised Scale 1475-3575) which is equivalent to the UDA Rank, (ii) Technical Assistant in the Scale of pay Rs.620-1315 (Revised to scale Rs.1373-3375) & equivalent to LDA Scale. Sri Dipen Boruah was appointed as Technical Assistant not as Sr.Technical Assistant as per the advertisement & appointment terms and conditions and accordingly his initial scale of pay should have been Rs.620-1315 (Revised to scale Rs.1373-3375) & equivalent to LDA Scale and not Rs.670-1315 (Revised Scale 1475-3575) which is equivalent to LDA Scale and not Rs.670-1315 (Revised Scale 1475-3575) which is equivalent to the UDA Rank. The Committee further observed that there was no change of Pay Scale of Technical Assistant by the CPC-1990 as stated. The revised Scale of Pay of

¶36

Page No.# 6/9

¶37

Technical Assistant in the CPC-1990 from Rs.620-1315 to Rs.1375-3375 (page 41) is correct. In this regard, the Committee further observed that Pay Scale of a person appointed in a particular Post is determined by the appointment terms and conditions and relevant rules, not by the scale of pay of his predecessor.”

¶38

A reading of the observations of the Committee would go to show that the respondent No.7 Sri Dipen Baruah was appointed as a Technical Assistant and not as a senior Technical Assistant and as per the appointment terms and conditions and under the relevant rules his initial scale of pay ought to have been Rs.620-1315 which was revised to scale Rs.1373-3375 per month, and it was a pay equivalent to the pay scale of LDA, and not Rs.670-1315 (Revised Scale 1475-3575) which is equivalent to a UDA. The Committee also observed that there was no change of scale of pay of Technical Assistant and that of the scale of pay applicable to a person is determined by the terms and conditions of the appointment under the relevant rules and not by any scale of pay that may have been paid to any other employee who was earlier appointed in the same post. Consequent thereto, in the minutes of 13.03.2014, the Committee arrived at a conclusion that it was not convinced with the reasons cited for upgrading the respondent No.7 from the level of LDA in the scale of pay of Rs.620-1315 (Revised to scale Rs.1373-3375) to the level of UDA in the scale of pay Rs.6701315 (Revised Scale 1475-3575). It also arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.7 was a Technical Assistant and not a Senior Technical Assistant as per the appointment terms and therefore his initial scale of pay should be Rs.620-1315/- (revised to Scale of Rs.1373-3375) and not in the scale of pay of Rs.670-1315/- (revised to Scale of Rs. 1475-3575).

¶39

Page No.# 7/9

¶40

Accordingly, the Committee made the following recommendations:

¶41

“1. The proposal for re-designation of the incumbent Technical Assistant as Sr. Technical Assistant may not be accepted which may create future administrative problems later on.

¶42

The earlier decision of the Executive Council vide Resolution No. Resolution No.2000/18/146 & Resolution No.2000/14/110 dated 8/7/2000 granting higher Scale of Pay to Sri Dipen Boruah may be reviewed in terms of actual facts or status que be maintained on the matter as it is a very old case (more than 10 years).

¶43

In future the Technical Assistant be appointed strictly on the CPC-2010 Scale of Pay, i.e. Rs.5,200-20,200 with Grade Pay Rs.3,300 (LDA level).”

¶44

Based on the recommendation by the Committee in its meeting of 13.03.2014, this writ petition is instituted with a prayer that, amongst others, the office order dated 21.05.2001 allowing the respondent No.7 Sri Dipen Baruah in the scale of pay beginning Rs.1475/- be set aside.

¶45

Mr. PK Kalita, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.7, on the other hand, by referring to the affidavit filed, points out that the enhancement of the scale of pay of respondent No.7 was made as per the recommendation of the Executive Council and which was approved by the Vice Chancellor and as such no interference of the order dated 21.05.2001 is required in this writ petition.

¶46

Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the Gauhati University on the other

¶47

Page No.# 8/9

¶48

hand, states that the enhancement of the scale of pay meted to the respondent No.7 was by following due procedure of law and, therefore, from such point of view also no interference is required. But, however, we take note of one aspect of the matter that after the scale of pay of the respondent No.7 was enchanced in the scale of pay beginning Rs.1475/- per month, the petitioner had raised the grievance by filing representations to the Registrar Gauhati University as well as before the Vice Chancellor and the representations resulted in the Committee being formed by the Vice Chancellor to go deeper into the issue as regards scale of pay that may be applicable to the respondent No.7. The Committee, as noted above, in its resolution of 13.03.2014 had made certain observations and also made certain recommendations, but the records does not reveal that such observations and recommendations of the Committee in its minutes of 13.03.2014 have been placed before the Executive Council which alone would be competent under the law as stated by Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the Gauhati University to take a decision in the matter.

¶49

Considering the matter in its entirety, we direct the Registrar Gauhati University to place the observations and recommendations made by the Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor in its meeting dated 13.03.2014 before the next available meeting of the Executive Council and the Executive Council may deliberate upon the same and take a final decision on the matter.

¶50

As the petitioner may retire from service within a very short period of time, we make it incumbent upon the Registrar Gauhati University to place the aforesaid resolutions of the meeting dated 13.03.2014 before the next available meeting of the Executive Council without any fail.

¶51

Page No.# 9/9

¶52

15. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. v. the Gauhati University and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. v. the Gauhati University and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chayanika Deka Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mozibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ramen Kr Sarma and 41 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Chinmoy Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Amit Basumatari Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

MD Rouchan Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.