Disposed

Pinku Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 May 2022WP(C)/7117/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning an Assistant Teacher whose name was inadvertently omitted from the amalgamated school staff list. The court directed the Secretary of the Elementary Education Department to act on a communication dated 16.9.2020, considering an admitted oversight, and pass a reasoned order within three weeks. Arrears of salary must be paid within six we

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department to act on specific communications and pass a reasoned order within three weeks to include the petitioner's name in the amalg

Pinku Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010217212021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7117/2021

¶5

PINKU DAS

¶6

SO. LATE PARENDRA KUMAR DAS VIII.- KALINAQAR, P.O.- KALINAQAR P.S. PANCHQRAM, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM DISPUR. GUWAHATI - 19

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶11

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19

¶12

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

¶13

4:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL AMALGAMATION HAILAKANDI

¶14

5:THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI

¶15

6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI EDUCATION BLOC

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A PHUKAN (SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION)

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 17.5.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. N. J. Qudir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education department and Mr. P. Saikia, learned State counsel of Assam.

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Teacher at No. 77 Chandrapur L.P. School after a due selection process and against the vacancy of one Hilal Uddin Borbhuiyan who retired from service, by an appointment order dated 28.6.2013 issued under the signature of Director of Elementary Education, Assam.

¶24

Subsequent to a policy decision of the Govt. of Assam to maintain Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) in different lower primary schools, a committee constituted under such policy recommended transfer of petitioner from No. 77 No. Chandrapur L.P. School to No. 558 Swarupram LP School. Pursuant to such order petitioner joined in the said No. 558 Swarupram L.P School.

¶25

Thereafter by virtue of yet another policy decision of the Government to amalgamate different schools into one school, the said No. 558 Swarupram LP School was amalgated with Kalibari Govt. Junior Basic School. However the petitioner claims that while amalgamating the two schools, the petitioner’s name was not forwarded by the competent authority and accordingly the petitioner is derived from his salary since then, though he is serving in the amalgamated school.

¶26

Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Annexure- 4

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

document, which is a minutes of meeting of District Level Amalgamation Committee held on 19.2.2020 projects that the name of the petitioner was not sent due to over sight/printing mistake. In view of such admission by the District Level Amalgamation Committee, the name of the petitioner ought to have been incorporated as Asstt. Teacher in the amalgamated school and should have paid his due salaries as he is serving the school inspite of such mistake on the part of his employer, Mr. Quadir, learned counsel submits. The learned counsel further submits that subsequent to such decision the District Elementary Education by its communication dated 19.2.2020 (Annexure-5), requested the Director of Elementary Education issued to do the needful as the name of the petitioner was wrongly dropped from staff pattern and at the time of amalgamation of the school. Thereafter the Director of Elementary Education Assam by its communication dated 16.9.2020 requested the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam to include the name of the petitioner in the amalgamation list as his name was left out inadvertently. Alongwith the said communication dated 16.9.2020, the Director of Elementary Education enclosed the consolidated statement relating to the school. Mr. Quadir submits that inspite of such admitted position he is suffering and he has not been paid his salary for more than three years i.e. from the date of amalgamation, though he is serving in the school.

¶29

Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has not received any instruction in the present case why inspite of the communication the petitioner’s name was not incorporated in the list of teachers in the amalgamated school.

¶30

Since the petitioner is without salary and as agreed to by the learned

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

counsel for the parties, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department to act upon the communication dated 16.9.2020 issued by the Director of Elementary Education and pass a reasoned order within a period of three weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner before the said Secretary. While passing of the speaking order the Secretary shall take note of the resolution dated 19.2.2020 of the District Level Amalgamation Committee, the communication of District Elementary Education Officer addressed to the Director of Elementary Education Officer dated 19.2.2020 and the communication dated 16.9.2020 issued by the Director of Elementary Education alongwith the Annexure A and B thereof.

¶33

It is needless to say that after incorporation of the name of the petitioner in the school, the petitioner shall be entitled for his arrear salary and the same need to be paid within a period of six weeks from passing of a speaking order, if the same is in favour of the petitioner.

¶34

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of. However no order as to cost.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Pinku Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinku Das 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mahanta Barman Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

MD Jamat Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Amalendu Paul and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Aminul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Arati Bora Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.