Allowed

Mridul Neog v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC21 Sept 2022WP(C)/1378/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired school inspector, filed a writ petition alleging violation of his legal right to be considered for promotion to Additional Director. Despite a pending departmental proceeding that delayed initial consideration, he was notionally promoted to Joint Director. The court held his right was violated as he was excluded from the subsequent DPC for Additional Director. It directed a r

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secondary Education Department to constitute a Review DPC within two months to examine the petitioner's claim for promotion to Additional Director and issue consequential orders.

Mridul Neog Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010030282022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1378/2022

¶5

MRIDUL NEOG

¶6

S/O. LT. DHONESWAR NEOG, R/O. HOUSE NO.20, NIPCCD PATH, BYE LANE NO.3, KHANAPARA, P.O. AND P.S. KHANAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781022.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF (SECONDARY) EDUCATION ASSAM

¶12

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

21.09.2022

¶19

Heard Ms. M Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Mazumdar, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam.

¶20

The petitioner who was an Inspector of Schools in the cadre of Deputy Director, was subjected to a departmental proceeding as per the show cause notice dated 04.01.2019. The disciplinary proceeding resulted in the order dated 15.02.2021 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department, by which a view was taken that as the delinquent official had already been issued a warning to be more careful in conduct of his official duties, therefore, the departmental proceeding stood disposed of. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was considered by the DPC for promotion to the next higher cadre of Joint Director. But the recommendation of the DPC was kept in a sealed cover as the departmental proceeding was pending.

¶21

Subsequently, after the order dated 15.02.2021, the recommendation of the DPC was acted upon as per the order dated 07.04.2021 and the petitioner was given the benefit of notional promotion from 25.09.2020 when the person junior to the petitioner was promoted as Joint Director.

¶22

In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 19.04.2021. But at the same time before the order dated 07.04.2021 by which the petitioner was notionally promoted as Joint Director w.e.f. 25.09.2020, the person junior to the

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

petitioner had in the meantime been subjected to a further DPC and was promoted as Additional Director. The petitioner is aggrieved to the extent that even though there may have been a departmental proceeding pending against him at that relevant time, under the law, the petitioner was entitled to be considered by the DPC for further promotion to Additional Director although the same may have been kept under the sealed cover method.

¶25

Materials on record indicate that in the subsequent DPC for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director, the petitioner was not considered nor his case was placed before the DPC. As a legal right existed in favour of the petitioner for being considered by the DPC for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director and it having not been done, we are of the view that the legal right of the petitioner at that stage had been violated.

¶26

Although the petitioner had retired from service, we direct the respondents in the Secondary Education Department to constitute a review DPC to examine the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director by strictly taking note of the facts and circumstance involved in respect of the petitioner as well as the law that may be applicable for such promotion. The review DPC be constituted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

If the review DPC decides in favour of the petitioner, further consequential order for notional promotion as Additional Director may be issued and consequently the retirement benefits that the petitioner may be entitled would be that of an Additional Director. On the other hand, if the review DPC in the facts and circumstance of the case as well as taking the relevant law into consideration is of the view that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion, a reasoned order may be passed and the petitioner be communicated about such

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

order.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Mridul Neog v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mridul Neog v. the State of Assam and 2 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

Manuwara Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Abdur Rouf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pankaj Kr. Nath Vs Papari Devi

Faruk Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rintu Kakati Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gita Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.