Disposed

Abdul Sattar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2022WP(C)/1379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concerns a writ petition by a casual sweeper claiming minimum pay under a previous judgment. The court held that the petitioner failed to approach the authorities first and thus cannot approach the superior court without exhausting alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit representations to concerned authorities within one month. Writ petition disposed.

Abdul Sattar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010030262022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1379/2022

¶5

ABDUL SATTAR

¶6

S/O. LT. MUJAFAR ALI, VILL. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

¶11

DEPTT. OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR

¶13

LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32.

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

MORIGAON PIN-782105.

¶16

5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SADAR)

¶17

MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

Page No.# 2/3

PIN-782105.

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

LAHARIGHAT REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : M ALAMGEER

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date : 03.06.2022

¶27

Heard Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is working as a Part-time casual employee (Sweeper) in the Office Circle Officer, Laharighat Revenue Circle since 01.07.1989.

¶28

The petitioner’s salary was enhanced to Rs. 3000/- per month w.e.f 15.12.2014, vide letter no. RRG.40/2014/16 dated 28.02.2018 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Revenue (Reforms) and D.M. Department.

¶29

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to be given the minimum scale of pay in terms of the Para 22 of the Division Bench judgment passed in State of Assam Vs. Upen Das & 835 Others, WA No. 45/2014 , which was disposed of on 08.06.2017. He further submits that the petitioner’s name was forwarded to the authorities for being given the benefit in terms of Para 22 of the judgment passed in WA No. 45/2014, vide letter No. MPE. 27/2006/224 dated 10.01.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, which was addressed to

¶30

Page No.# 3/3

¶31

the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & D.M. Department. However, no further action has been taken by the respondent authorities till date.

¶32

Mr. C. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, Ms. A. Tarana, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 3 submit that the petitioner has not submitted any representation with regard to his grievance before the authorities prior to approaching this Court.

¶33

As the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy available, prior to approach this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first avail the alternative remedy available by filing a representation to the concerned authorities.

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to submit representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & D.M. Department, with regard to his grievance regarding the non-payment of the minimum scale of pay in terms of Para-22 of the Division Bench in WA No. 45/2014. The petitioner shall submit his representations within a period of one month from today.

¶35

Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, respondent no. 1 and other respondents shall take a decision on the same, within a further period of two (02) months thereafter. The decision taken should be communicated to the petitioner.

¶36

Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Sattar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sattar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Krishna Rao Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sahjahan Sheikh and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Debajit Chakravarty Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jayanta Deka Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nikumani Devi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.