Partly allowed

Hydar Ali Rymbai v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/1995/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authority to revisit a two-year-old order refusing dearness allowance to a retired employee. The court found the authority failed to consider an Executive Committee resolution setting 01.08.2012 as the effective date for applying State Government pay rules.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to revisit the order dated 24.01.2017 considering resolutions from 2012, determine entitlement to dearness allowance from 01.08.2012, and pass a speaking order within four weeks.

Hydar Ali Rymbai Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No. 1/6

¶2

GAHC010018422017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1995/2017

¶5

HYDAR ALI RYMBAI

¶6

S/O. LT. OSMAN ALI, R/O. HAGJER NAGER, P.O. HAFLONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG.

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY N DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE ADDL. SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER N DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P GOHAIN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶16

Page No. 2/6

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 02-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Khanikar, learned Standing Counsel, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5.

¶21

The petitioner was an Assistant Executive Engineer under the Rural Development Department, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council and he retired from service on 31.01.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶22

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the dearness allowance in terms of the Assam Government Financial Rules has not been paid to him.

¶23

In response to an application preferred by him under the Right to Information [RTI] Act, 2005, the petitioner was given to understand through a reply dated 17.02.2015 that the authorities in the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council used to follow the Assam Government Financial and Pay Rules. In the information supplied to him by the reply dated 17.02.2015 by the Secretary [N] In-Charge Finance, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, it was inter alia informed to him that the rates of dearness allowances to the State Government employees were paid @ 72% w.e.f. 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012; @ 80% w.e.f. 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013; and @ 90% w.e.f. 01.07.2013 onwards. As the petitioner was paid dearness allowance @ 35% in the year 2013, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent no. 3 on 02.03.2015 followed by a reminder, for grant of dearness allowance at the same rate as was paid to the State Government employees. When the said representations were not considered for a prolonged period of time, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6960/2016, which was disposed

¶24

Page No. 3/6

¶25

of by an order dated 21.11.2016 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order thereon within a stipulated time period thereafter.

¶26

The representations were considered by the respondent no. 3 and the same were disposed of by an order dated 24.01.2017 which reads as under :-

¶27

“THE NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL : HALFLONG

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The N.C. Hills Autonomous Council is not in a position to consider the case of Shri Hyder Ali Rymbai, Retd. A.E.E., Rural Department praying for Payment of Dearness Allowances at par with the State Govt. Employees as per decision of the Executive Committee meeting under Resolution No. 12 Dated 20^th July, 2012 and under Resolution No. 22, Dated 13.02.2013 respectively [A copy of the order is enclosed herewith]. Thereafter the rate of Dearness Allowances has been enhanced to 65% w.e.f. 01.01.2015 only to all its Employees vide Council order No. FIN/A/26/2014-2015/13, Dated 16.02.2015 as per decision of Executive Committee meeting held on 29.01.2015 under Resolution No. 6 [copy of the order enclosed].

¶30

This has the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Executive Member, N. C. Hills Autonomous council.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Principal Secretary [N],

¶33

N. C. Hills Autonomous Council,

¶34

Haflong”

¶35

Aggrieved by the afore-quoted order dated 24.01.2017, the petitioner has approached again by the instant writ petition for grant of dearness allowance to him for the

¶36

Page No. 4/6

¶37

period preceding his date of retirement on 31.01.2013, at the same rate as was payable to the State Government Employees.

¶38

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3, a stand has been taken that the petitioner was an employee under the Normal Sector of the respondent Council and the petitioner was not an employee under the Government of Assam. As such, the petitioner was entitled to pay and other allowances including dearness allowance only at the rates determined by the respondent Council. It has been averred that at the time of retirement, the dearness allowance in respect of the Council employees under the Normal Sector was payable @ 35% and the said rate was due to a resolution taken by the Executive Committee of the Council vide Resolution no. 22 in its Meeting held on 13.02.2013 wherein the Executive Committee resolved to stand by its earlier resolution taken in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 12.07.2012. The copies of the Minutes of the Executive Committee meetings, held on 12.07.2012 and 13.02.2013, have been annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3.

¶39

A perusal of the copy of the Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, held on 12.07.2012, goes to show that the Executive Committee had discussed and decided to adopt the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 to the officers and employees of the Council and it had decided that 01.08.2008 would be the effective date. In the Resolution no. 22 taken by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13.02.2013, the Executive Committee discussed the issue regarding adoption of the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 and it decided to stay as per the earlier Executive Committee resolution regarding basic pay and Dearness Allowance of the year 2010.

¶40

Thus, a joint reading of the Resolution no. 12 adopted in the Meeting of the Executive Committee, held on 12.07.2012, and the Resolution no. 22 adopted in the Meeting of the Executive Committee, held on 13.02.2013, goes to indicate that the Executive Committee of the respondent Council had decided to adopt the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 in respect of the officers and employees of the respondent Council w.e.f.

¶41

Page No. 5/6

¶42

01.08.2012. If the date, 01.08.2012 is the effective date of adoption of the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 for payment of pay and allowances including dearness allowance for the officers and employees in the Normal Sector of the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, then the petitioner is prima facie, entitled to the dearness allowance at the same rates like the State Government employees for the period from 01.08.2012. It has not appeared from the impugned order dated 24.01.2017 that the aspect was duly considered by the respondent no. 3 while passing the order wherein it was only mentioned that the rate of dearness allowance had been enhanced to 65% only w.e.f. 01.01.2015. The petitioner has not been placed any material to show that the employees in the Normal Sector of the respondent Council are entitled to the pay and allowances payable to the State Government employees.

¶43

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2007 might not have taken into consideration the decision of the Executive Committee of the respondent N.C. Hills Autonomous Council to take the date, 01.08.2012 as effective date of implementing the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 in respect of the officers and employees of the respondent Council under the Normal Sector and as such, the respondent no. 3 should have a relook at the order dated 24.01.2017 passed in deference to the direction made in the order dated 21.11.2016 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6960/2016. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to revisit the order dated 24.01.2017 by taking into consideration the Resolution no. 12 adopted by the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 12.07.2012, and the Resolution no. 22 adopted by the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 13.02.2013 together in respect of the effective date of implementation of the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2010 as 01.08.2012 vis-à-vis the amount payable towards dearness allowance to the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2012 and after such consideration, to pass a speaking order within a period of 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. If after such consideration, the petitioner is found entitled to any sum towards dearness allowance, the sum shall be disbursed within a period of 6 [six] weeks thereafter. The order so passed,

¶44

Page No. 6/6

¶45

shall also be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. No cost.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Hydar Ali Rymbai v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hydar Ali Rymbai v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subha Ram Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Partha Sarathi Chakraborty and 5 Ors. Vs Souvik Das Choudhury and 4 Ors.

Pinak Dey Vs Keerthi Jalli, IAS and Anr.

Kunti Bhagat Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Azizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Kaliram Boro Vs Assam Gramin Vikash Bank