Disposed

Deheswar Dutta v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/5517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the Director General of Police to consider the petitioner's representation regarding his mental illness and potential service of the 1993 reinstatement order before deciding on pensionary benefits within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director General of Police to consider the writ petition representation with sympathetic regard to mental illness and service issues within one month.

Deheswar Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010168792022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5517/2022

¶5

DEHESWAR DUTTA

¶6

CONSTABLE NO.960, S/O. LT. SARURAM DUTTA, VILL. ALLENGMURIA, P.O. DHEKIAL, P.S. DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007.

¶10

3:COMMANDANT 11TH ASSAM POLICE BATALLIAN DERGAON GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

19.09.2022

¶15

Heard Mr. R Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents in the

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Home Department of the Government of Assam.

¶18

The petitioner, who was appointed as a constable in the Assam Police and was posted in the 11^th Assam Police Battalion on 21.08.1980, could not attend his duties due to mental illness. In the circumstance, a departmental proceeding No. 38/91 was drawn up against him and by the order dated 06.03.1993, the service of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of termination and by the order dated 31.12.1993 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (T&AP), the order of termination was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated in service. But however, the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 31.12.1993 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (T&AP) inasmuch as at that relevant point of time, he was suffering from mental illness and therefore he could not join service even after being reinstated. In the circumstance, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.02.2019 before the respondent authorities. The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim made in the representation had not been attended by the respondent authorities.

¶19

In the circumstance, we direct the Director General of Police, Assam to give a consideration to the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2019 and in doing so, the Director General of Police to also examine as to whether the petitioner was suffering from mental illness when the order dated 31.12.1993 was passed reinstating him in service and if yes, to give a sympathetic consideration. Further, the Director General of Police to also look from the records as to whether the order dated 31.12.1993 was served on the petitioner inasmuch as there is a requirement of law that if an order had been passed but not served on the person concerned, it is not binding and therefore, if not served, it cannot be construed that the petitioner had not obeyed the

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

order dated 31.12.1993 to rejoin the service.

¶22

In this respect a reference is made to the proposition of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal –vs- M.R Mondal, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 443, wherein in paragraph 16 it has been held as follows:-

¶23

“An order passed but retained in file without being communicated to the plaintiff can have no force or authority whatsoever and the same has no valid existence in the eye of law or claim to have come into operation and effect.”

¶24

The reasoned order be passed by the Director General of Police within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

We have taken note that the petitioner is presently 69 years old and therefore even if he is given the benefit, all that he will receive is the pensionery benefits which again the Director General may sympathetically consider. To facilitate the process, the petitioner may also provide the Director General of Police with a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this order.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Deheswar Dutta v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deheswar Dutta 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bharat Gandhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Anjali Ghose Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Khudi Ram Rabha Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mrinmay Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Shekhar Barman Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.