Remanded

Dilip Datta v. the Union of India and Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2022WP(C)/3560/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a previous order granting retrospective promotion also mandated providing further consequential benefits. Finding these were not yet awarded, the matter was remanded to the NIT authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for further promotion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to NIT Silchar authorities to consider claim for further consequential benefits and further promotion within three months.

Dilip Datta Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010095072010

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3560/2010

¶5

DILIP DATTA

¶6

S/O LT. PARESH CH. DATTA, R/O VILL. BORGANG, PO. BORGANG, PS. BEHALI, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER SR. SCALE DEPTT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SILCHAR, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEV., NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶11

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR CACHAR

¶12

3:THE CHAIRMAN

¶13

BOARD OF GOVERNORS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR CACHAR

¶14

4:THE REGISTRAR

¶15

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR CACHA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N PATHAK

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶21

Date : 04-08-2022

¶22

Heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1, being the Union of India through the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, being the authorities under the National Institute of Technology, Silchar (NIT, Silchar).

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent NIT, Silchar on 26.06.1995. The petitioner claims for the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers of Degree Level Technical Institution (CAS) provided by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Clause 1.0 of the CAS provides that the minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D., five years for those with M.Phil., M.Tech and six years for others at the level of Lecturer. The petitioner belongs to the category of having M.Tech. and therefore, the minimum length of service for moving to the Lecturer (Senior Grade) would be five years. Accordingly, the petitioner made a claim for the benefit of CAS at the end of five years of his service as Lecturer. The said request was accepted by the respondent in the NIT, Silchar from 17.01.2004 but not from the date when he had completed five years.

¶24

Being aggrieved, WP(C) No. 5967/2007 was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent NIT, Silchar, which was given a final consideration by the order dated 12.02.2009. In the said writ petition, a stand was taken by the

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

respondent authorities that as per the O.M. dated 04.03.2004 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, the benefit of CAS as per the O.M. dated 15.09.2003 was clarified to the effect that the date of giving actual monetary benefit shall be the date of the meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the NIT concerned. The said stand of the NIT was discussed by this Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2009, in paragraph 15 thereof. In paragraph 16, a conclusion was arrived at that the reason for giving different effective dates of promotion and/or placement in the senior scale by the Selection Committee was not discernible and that it was one thing to say that the BOG was bound by the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and it was another thing to say that the Selection Committee was entitled to make recommendations of the incumbents from different dates. If there were variations in the recommendations made relating to the effective date of placement, the reasons thereof should be discernible and in the case before the Court, no reason was discernible. Accordingly, a conclusion was arrived that the claim of the petitioner requires a fresh consideration upon a correct interpretation of the Office Memorandums.

¶27

Accordingly, in paragraph 19 thereof, a direction was issued to the respondents in the NIT, Silchar to give a fresh consideration to the case of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines holding the field. Paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 12.02.2009 further provides as extracted:

¶28

“If upon such examination, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get his placement with retrospective effect as has been claimed by him i.e. with effect from 26.6.2000 or from any other earlier date than 17.1.2004, consequential orders thereof, shall be passed with further consequential benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled to.”

¶29

Pursuant to the requirements of the directions in paragraph 19 of the

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

judgment dated 12.02.2009 in WP(C) No. 5967/2007, the order dated 02.04.2010 had been issued by the Registrar, NIT, Silchar, by which it was provided that the BOG in its 23^rd meeting held on 30.03.2010 under item No. 06 had accepted the recommendation of CAS Committee and approved the promotion of the petitioner Shri Dilip Datta from Lecturer to Lecturer (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 26.06.2000.

¶32

A reading of the requirements of the judgment dated 12.02.2009 as extracted above makes it discernible that the direction was twofold. The first direction was to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get his placement with retrospective effect from 26.06.2000 or from any other earlier date prior to 17.01.2004, consequential orders thereof shall be passed. In other words, as per the first direction in the judgment dated 12.02.2009 in paragraph 19, apart from giving retrospective effect to the promotion from 26.06.2000, consequential benefits of such promotion i.e. the financial benefits etc. be also provided. But the second direction of the Court is that upon giving retrospective effect to the promotion from 26.06.2000 and after providing consequential benefits, further consequential benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled be also provided. The expression ‘further consequential benefits’ would have to be understood to mean of such consequential benefits of the promotion w.e.f. 26.06.2000, i.e. the further promotions that the petitioner may be entitled having his date of earlier promotion to be 26.06.2000. No other meaning can be attributed to the expression ‘further consequential benefits’, over and above, the consequential benefits of the retrospective promotion. We have noticed that the order dated 02.04.2010 provides for the retrospective promotion with consequential benefits but the further consequential benefits had not been given to the petitioner.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the authorities of the NIT, Silchar to be placed before the appropriate Selection Committee for considering the claim of the petitioner for further consequential benefits, i.e. if there is any entitlement of the petitioner for further promotion subsequent to the retrospective promotion to the Lecturer (Senior Scale) on and from 26.06.2000. If the Selection Committee finds the petitioner was entitled, the same be placed before the BOG for its requirement. The above requirement of considering the case of the petitioner for further consequential benefits as per the judgment dated 12.02.2009, as clarified and indicated above, be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Dilip Datta v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Datta v. the Union of India and 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

Babita Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Paresh Sarma Vs Rakesh Kumar and Anr.

Mokhtar Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Asomi Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Biswajit Pegu and 2 Ors.

Smt. Dipti Bori Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sahadulal Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.