Partly allowed

Smti Juri Pathak v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2021WP(C)/7957/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, an Instructor/Technical Officer in IASST, challenged her pay scale. The High Court found the Registrar's order upgrading her grade pay inconsistent with the fitment table in the CSS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The court stayed the invalid order and remanded the matter for a de novo determination.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.11.2011 of the Registrar IASST is set aside, and the matter is remanded for a fresh order within one month considering the fitment table in the Rules of 2008.

Smti Juri Pathak Vs the Union of India and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010028662015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7957/2015

¶5

SMTI JURI PATHAK

¶6

TECHNICAL OFFICER -A, INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, PASCHIM BORAGAON, GHY-35, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPTT. OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN , NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-16

¶10

2:THE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPTT. OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN NEW MEHRAULI ROAD NEW DELHI-16

¶11

3:THE REGISTRAR INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PASCHIM BORAGAON GUWAHATI-35 ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K DAS

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

09.12.2021

¶18

Heard Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 being the authorities under the Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology (for short, IASST) and Mr. K Gogoi, learned CGC for the respondent No.1 being the authorities in the Union of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology.

¶19

The petitioner is an Instructor/Technical Officer A in the IASST located at Paschim Boragaon Guwhati. It is stated that the IASST is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and is an Institute under the Government of Assam since the year 1991. Subsequently, by the order dated 27.05.2009 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology, the IASST located at Paschim Boragaon Guwahati was converted as a grant-in-aid institute of the Government of India under the aforesaid department. Upon the institute being converted into grant-in-aid institute, the salary and allowances provided under the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules 2008 (for short, the Rules of 2008) was adopted. In doing so, the petitioner was placed in the revised pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with a grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Being aggrieved, a representation was submitted dated 05.04.2010 before the Director IASST claiming that in respect of the post graduate degree holders in the other similarly situated institutes like the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Hyderabad and other institutions, the basic pay of Rs.13050 + grade pay of Rs.4800/- was made applicable. Accordingly, the petitioner claims parity to the pay and allowances payable in respect of similar qualifications and similar job in the other institutes.

¶22

The petitioner pointed out that having been placed in the pay band of Rs.9300-34000 with grade pay of Rs.4200, the petitioner is placed at a lower scale of pay than otherwise she is entitled to. In response thereof, the Registrar IASST had passed the order dated 18.11.2011 showing the petitioner in the grade pay of Rs.4600/-, but continues with the earlier scale of pay corresponding to pay band of Rs.9300-34,800/- of grade pay Rs.4200/-.

¶23

Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the first schedule of the Rules of 2008 which provides for the corresponding scales of pay to the various grade pays. By referring to the first schedule. Mr. S Nath, learned counsel points out that corresponding to the grade pay of Rs.4600/- the scale of pay applicable would be different and the earlier scale of pay paid to the petitioner corresponding to grade pay of Rs.4200/- would be unsustainable.

¶24

Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the fitment table available in the aforesaid Rules of 2008 which provides for grade pay of Rs.4600/- in the pay band of Rs.13,860/-. By referring to the aforesaid fitment table, the grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order of the Registrar dated 18.11.2011 does not take note of the fitment table and while upgrading the petitioner to the grade pay of Rs.4,600/- his pay band was fixed @

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

Rs.11,210/-.

¶27

In view of the variance in the provision of the order dated 18.11.2011 of the Registrar IASST and the fitment table in the Rules of 2008, we are interfering with the order dated 18.11.2011 of the Registrar IASST and send the matter back to the Registrar IASST for a de novo order to be passed by taking note of the fitment table provided in the Rules of 2008 and whatever order will be passed, the petitioner shall be subjected to the benefits of the said scale of pay.

¶28

The above requirement be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶29

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Smti Juri Pathak v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Juri Pathak v. the Union of India and 2 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

Barsha Devi @ Barasa Devi Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna

Rubul Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Indrajit Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/380838 Hav/Na Murali Kumar P. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

EX-C/N-912 Dulumoni Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Momrej Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.