Partly allowed

Prabin Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/4702/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former Block Development Officer, challenged his lack of pay revision and consequent pension calculation under ROP 2006 and 2016, attributable to his long suspension. The court directed respondents to treat the petition as a representation and complete the settlement within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is treated as a representation; respondents directed to consider grievances and grant permissible steps within three months.

Prabin Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010150082019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4702/2019

¶5

PRABIN KUMAR NATH

¶6

S/O. SRI GHANASHYAM NATH, R/O. TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM-786125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR,-06, ASSAM.

¶10

2:DY. SECRETARY

¶11

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT.

¶12

3:ADDL. SECRETARY

¶13

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.

¶14

4:DISTRICT DIRECTOR

¶15

DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TINSUKIA ASSAM.

¶16

5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶17

ITAKHULI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK MOHKHULI TINSUKIA.

6:DY. COMMISSIONER

Page No.# 2/2

TINSUKIA ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS M D CHOWDHURY

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M NATH (R-1,3,4 & 5)

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 04-03-2021

¶26

Heard Mrs. M.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 and Mr. B. Doley, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 6.

¶27

The petitioner who was working as Bolck Development Officer was suspended in 27.02.2007 in connection with his arrest and detention in Silapathar P.S. Case No. 114/2006 under Sections 409/420 IPC. During his suspension period ROP 2006 and 2016 were notified. He was re-instated in service vide order No. PDB.206/2006/186 dated 02.01.2016 and he retired on 25^th January, 2021. Due to his suspension for a long time he was not given the benefit of ROP 2006 and 2016. Therefore, being aggrieved he is before this Court through this writ petition.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner’s pay has not been revised as per the ROP Rules 2006 and 2016 his pension also can not be worked out and the department concerned has not taken any step for doing the same.

¶29

Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel fairly submitted that since the petitioner has submitted a representation the respondents may be given time to disposed the same within a specified time.

¶30

I have considered both the submissions of the learned counsels, the nature of the grievance as expressed in the writ petition and facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition. Revision of pay is an entitlement of government servant as and when new ROP comes. Therefore, the respondents are directed to treat the writ petition itself as a representation and consider the grievances expressed therein and worked out the required steps for granting the prayer therein permissible under the rules. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with copy of this writ petition.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Prabin Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabin Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Emdadul Hoque Sarkar and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pranab Barman and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Saiful Haque and 51 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Debajit Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Lakhinder Swargiary and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gyandhi Lapung and 7 Ors. Vs the Appsc and Anr.