Ramendra Deka and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/18

¶2

GAHC010140872019

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4338/2019

¶6

RAMENDRA DEKA AND 9 ORS. S/O LT. DHARMESWAR DEKA, R/O HOUSE NO. 17 B.T. COLLEGE, BYELANE WEST, LACHIT NAGAR, DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM

¶7

2: NAJIBUDDIN AHMED S/O LT. MD. GOWS R/O KUMARPARA F.A. ROAD HOUSE NO. 173 GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 3: SIBA PRASAD BARUAH S/O LT. DURGA PRASAD BASRUAD R/O H.NO. 35 VASKAR NAGAR R.G.B. ROAD GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781021 ASSAM 4: ER. MOFID AHMED S/O LT. ARSHAD AHMED R/O H. NO. 252 R.G.B. ROAD ZOO ROAD TINIALI BYE LANE NO. 5 APURBA SINHA PATH WAHEB JULEKHA COMPLEX GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781003 ASSAM

¶8

5: ANUP KUMAR GOGOI

¶9

Page No.# 2/18

¶10

S/O LT. KHIROD CHANDRA GOGOI R/O TEKELA CHIRING GAON KUMARNICHIGA P.O. RAJBVHETA DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786008 6: GIRINDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O DEBESWAR GOSWAMI R/O SANTIPIUR HILLSIDE WEST PNGB ROAD HOUSE NO. 95 GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781009 ASSAM 7: BIMAN KUMAR MAJUMDAR S/O LT. SUSHIL RANJAN MAJUMDAR R/O PANDAV NAGAR BYE LANE NO. 2 HOUSE NO. 10-A GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781012 ASSAM 8: AJOY SANKAR CHAKRABORTY S/O LT. ASWINI KUMAR CHAKRABORTY R/O BYE LANE NO. 8 LACHIT NAGAR HOUSE NO. 5 GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM 9: KHANINDRA KR. BAISHYA S/O LT. P.K. BAISHYA R/O PUB-SARUMOTORIA K.K. HANDIQUE ROAD HOUSE NO. 25 GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM

¶11

10: BASANTA BAISHYA S/O LT HARAKANTA BAISHYA R/O BONDA DAYAL NAGAR

¶12

Page No.# 3/18

¶13

GUWAHATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781026 ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT . OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE(PAY RESEARCH UNIT) DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. BLOCK-D 2ND FLOOR JANATA BHAVAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 5:THE DIRECTOR DEPTT. OF PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES GOVT. OF ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 ASSAM 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA KRISHNAPUR GUWAHATI-78102

¶14

Page No.# 4/18

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. M SARMA,MR P BHARDWAJ,MR. A BARKATAKI

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AG,SC, FINANCE

¶17

Linked Case : WP(C)/6916/2019

¶18

DIPANKAR CHANDA AND 35 ORS. SON OF LATE SANTI RANJAN CHANDA RESIDENT OF MAYUR KUNJ FLAT NO. 305 COLLEGE ROAD SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM

¶19

PIN -788004

¶20

2: SHRI ABIDUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY SON OF LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P. O. SADARASHI DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788709

¶21

3: SHRI SHYAMAL CHANDRA NATH SON OF LATE KAMESWAR NATH

¶22

RESIDENT OF - BHANGARPAR P.O. BHANGARPAR P.S. BARKHALA DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN -788127.

¶23

4: SHRI A. H. M. AFZAL HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF WATER WORKS ROAD SILCHAR-1 DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788001

¶24

5: SHRI JAGAT JYOTI SINHA SON OF LATE JAJNESWAR SINHA

¶25

Page No.# 5/18

¶26

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SINGARI P.O. SINGARI DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788007.

¶27

6: SHRI RAKHAL CHANDRA SHIL SON OF LATE SURESH CHANDRA SHILL RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶28

PIN-788710.

¶29

7: SMTI. SHEFALI DEY CARE OF SHRI SAMIRAN DEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MIRZAPUR P. O. BHANGA BAZAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788701 8: SHRI KUTUB UDDIN BARBHUIYA SON OF MD. MAZIZUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAKHIN KRISHNAPUR P.O. SONABARIGHAT DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN -788013

¶30

9: SHRI TAJ UDDIN LASKAR SON OF LATE RAHMAN ALI LASKAR

¶31

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKHIN MOHANPUR PART-I

¶32

P. O. GOVINDANAGAR P. S. SONAI DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788119. 10: SHRI FAYAZ AHMED LASKAR RESIDENT OF DAKHIN KRISHNAPUR P.O. SOABARIGHAT

¶33

Page No.# 6/18

¶34

P.S. SILCHAR

¶35

DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788013 11: SHRI SUKHENDU SARMA S/O SHRI NIRODE CH. SARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P. O. BORKHALA DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788110. 12: SMTI. PROTIMA SINHA WIFE OF SHRI LAKSHMI KANTA SINHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PATIALA P.O PECHALA DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788734 13: SHRI MAHBUBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE - SAIFUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE - CHAYKUT P.O. KALIGANJ BAZAR DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788720 14: SHRI SAYEEDUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUL MANNAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF BAR-PURAHURIA P.O. MANIKGANJ DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788712 15: SHRI ABDUL KHALIQUE SON OF SHRI ABDUL GAFUR RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE - ABDULLAPUR P.O. P.S. NILAMBAZAR DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788722

¶36

Page No.# 7/18

¶37

16: SHRI JEUT PRASAD KURMI SON OF LATE BIDESHI KURMI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. CHANTILLA DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788736 17: SHRI KAMAL UDDIN MAZUMDER SON OF LATE KHALILUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SAIDPUR PT. II P. O. SAIDPUR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788119 18: SHRI UPENDRA CHANDRA SINGHA SON OF SHRI UDAY SINGHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KASHIPUR P.O. BARKHALA DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788110 19: SHRI JOWADUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUS SATTAR CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SRIMANTA KANISHAIL P. O. SHIBARCHAK DISTRICT-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788720 20: SHRI SHRI SIRAJ UDDIN SON OF LATE MATASIN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KANAKPUR P.O. KAYASTHAGRAM DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788719 21: SHRI ABDUR RAHMAN LASKAR SON OF LATE MD. IRSHAD ALI LASKAR RESIDENT OF MUKAM ROAD GHONIWALA P. O. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788002

¶38

Page No.# 8/18

¶39

22: SMTI. SUPTI SHYAM SEN WIFE OF SHRI ABINASH SEN RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 23 LANE NO. 1 LINK ROAD SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788006

¶40

23: SHRI SHRI APURBA KUMAR NATH SON OF SHRI RASHARAJ NATH RESIDENT OF SECOND LINK ROAD LANE NO. 12 HOUSE NO. 29 P.O. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM

¶41

PIN- 788006

¶42

24: SHRI HARIKESH BHATTACHARJEE SON OF LATE HARIPADA BHATTACHARJEE RESIDENT OF SOUTH BILPAR PROFESSOR PARA SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788005

¶43

25: SHRI ABDUL QUAIYUM SON OF LATE ABDUR RAHIM RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE P. O. LAMAJUAR DISTRICT KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788701

¶44

26: SHRI BHANUMOY CHANDA SON OF LATE LAKSHMI CHARAN CHANDA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SHYAMAPRASADPUR

¶45

P. O. AYLABARI DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶46

Page No.# 9/18

¶47

PRESENTLY RESIDING IN WARD NO. 4 THANA ROAD KARIGANJ TOWN P. O. DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN -788710. 27: SHRI FAKAR UDDIN SON OF MD. ABDUL SATTAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P. O. BHANGARPAR PART. II DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788817 28: SHRI ABDUL MALIQUE CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BERENGA PART-II P.O. BERENGA DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788005

¶48

29: SHRI FAKAR UDDIN LASKAR SON OF LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR RESIDENT OF A.R. BARLASKAR LANE MELA ROAD MALUGRAM P.O SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788002 30: SHRI ALTAF HUSSAIN BARLASKAR SON OF LATE HARIS ALI BARLASKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DURGANAGAR PART-V P.O. P.S. UDHARBOND DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788030 31: SHRI JYOTIRINDRA DAS SON OF JITENDRA KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OF KALIBARI ROAD SRIKRISHNA SARANI

¶49

Page No.# 10/18

¶50

TARAPUR SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788003 32: SHRI MAHIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR SON OF SHRI ABDUL RASHID LASKAR RESIDENT OF LAKHIPUR PART-I P.O. KALAIN DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788815 33: SHRI ATAUR RAHMAN SON OF NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAGARSHANGAN P.O. JAGANNATHI DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788709 34: SHRI PRODIP JYOTI CHANDA SON OF LATE DWARIKA NATH CHANDA RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN OPP. TO R.S. GIRLS COLLEGE KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN - 788710. 35: SMTI RUMA DEY WIFE OF SHRI ANIL DAS RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE - SENDAURA P. O. KALAIN P. S. KATIGORAH DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN -788815 36: SMTI. MONIKA CHAKRABORTY D/O LATE KRISHNA KAMAL BHATTACHARJEE RESIDENT OF KALAIN ROAD TARAPUR SILCHAR 3 DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788003 VERSUS

¶51

Page No.# 11/18

¶52

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI -6 3:THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (PAY RESEARCH UNIT) DISPUR GUWAHATI -6 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT BLOCK-D 2ND FLOOR JANATA BHAVAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 ASSAM 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA KRISHNAPUR GUWAHATI -781029 ------------

¶53

Page No.# 12/18

¶54

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Finance

¶55

– B E F O R E –

¶56

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶57

08.12.2025

¶58

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶59

We have heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, for the respondents/State.

¶60

The 10 (ten) retired government servants from various departments, who are the petitioners in WP(C) 4338/2019, and 36 (thirty-six) retired government servants, who are the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6916/2019, have approached this Court challenging the fixation of the cut-off date

¶61

as 1^st April, 2016 for extending the benefit of revised pay scales, on the ground of the same being arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contending that such cut-off date has created an artificial and hostile discrimination amongst the similarly situated employees without any intelligible differentia.

¶62

The petitioners retired between 01.01.2016 and 31.03.2016. They have been receiving pensions based on the pre-revised pay structure under the previous Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. They allege to have been excluded from the revised pension benefits due to the cut-off date in the new Rules.

¶63

Page No.# 13/18

¶64

Essentially, the challenge is to the fixing the date for implementation of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “ROP Rules of 2017”) enacted by the Government of Assam under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The ROP Rules of 2017 were published on March, 2017 and were deemed to be effective from 1^st April, 2016. These Rules were framed incorporating the recommendations

¶65

of the 7^th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPPC”), constituted in June, 2015 to review the pay structures, emoluments, pensions and productivity for State employees (excluding certain services like All India Services). The APPPC submitted its report on 18.11.2016 after an extension of its term. The report recommended a revised pay band system, enhancement to gratuity (up to Rs. 15 Lakhs) and other benefits and fixed the effective date for the changes as 1^st April, 2017, which was a departure from 1^st January, the traditional start date used in the previous revisions.

¶66

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that this cut-off date, i.e. April 1^st , 2016, arbitrarily divides the pensioners into two classes; one comprising those retiring before 1^st April, 2016 (themselves), who remain on pre-revised pensions, gratuity and leave encashment; and the other class comprising those retiring after 1^st April, 2016, who have been benefitted from the enhancements resulted from the ROP Rules, 2017.

¶67

It is submitted that the APPPC acknowledged that its terms of reference did not explicitly include setting an effective date, but it did so to honour the past practices from the earlier Commissions; yet ironically

¶68

Page No.# 14/18

¶69

deviated from the “1^st January” norm without explanation, citing vague reasons like better financial management, avoiding retrospective liabilities and aligning with a 10-year Revision Cycle from October 1, 2007.

¶70

It appears from the records that following the reports of the APPPC, the stakeholders raised concerns leading to formation of an Anomaly Committee on May 18, 2017 to examine the irregularities. This Committee submitted its report on December, 31, 2018, stating that it found no justification to alter the effective date (1^st April, 2017), which was accepted by the Government.

¶71

The allegation of the petitioners is that enacting the ROP Rules, 2017 before submission of the report by the Anomaly Committee reflects a pre-conceived, biased attitude and perhaps non-application of mind of the respondents/State.

¶72

It was emphasized that pension is a right for past services, not a bounty. The shift of the cut-off date from January to April has resulted in exclusion of the petitioners from the benefits of the pay revision, which they would have received if the effective date were January 1, 2016. This fixation of date, they contend, is without any rational basis or having any nexus to the objectives like improving productivity, which applies more to the serving employees.

¶73

Fixation of cut-off date for application of revised pay scale, Pension Rules, promotional schemes or any service benefits is a policy decision of the Executives. The Courts generally do not interfere unless the cut-off date is found to be patently arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The above-noted doctrine has been settled

¶74

Page No.# 15/18

¶75

through consistent line of Supreme Court cases.

¶76

In Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Parmeswaran Match Works etc. (1975) 1 SCC 305 , Mathew, J has observed as follows:

¶77

“ The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the Legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide off the reasonable mark.”

¶78

[Also refer to A. Manjula Bhashini & Others Vs. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. & Another, (2009) 8 SCC 431; M/S. Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Another Vs. Union Of India, 1960 SCR (3) 528; Dr. Mohammad Saheb Mahboob Medico Vs. The Deputy Custodian-General and Another, 1962 SCR (2) 371; M/s. Bhikuse Yamasa Kshatriya (P) LTD. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Another, 1964 SCR (1) 860, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1591; Daruka & Co. Vs. Union Of India & Ors., 1973 2 SCC 617 . ]

¶79

The Government has a wide discretion to fix a cut-off date for extending financial benefits to the employees and the role of the judiciary is limited to testing whether the date is arbitrary or discriminatory. Fixing cut-off dates is inevitable in administrative governance. A date chosen cannot be interfered with merely because another date could have been more beneficial/fairer to the petitioners. The Courts cannot substitute their own decision over the Government’s policy matters as fixing a cut-off date is purely in the domain of the decision of the Pay Commission and the Executives.

¶80

The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors.

¶81

Page No.# 16/18

¶82

(2005) 6 SCC 754 , has clearly laid down that the policy decision to fix a particular cut-off date for pension/pay revision cannot be interfered with unless it is proved to be arbitrary. Financial constraints and administrative convenience constitute valid reasons for fixing a particular cut-off date. Every cut-off date results in some hardships, but that does not make it unconstitutional. (Also refer to Union of India vs. P. N. Menon (1994) 4 SCC 68 ).

¶83

We find force in the submission of Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondents/State that the law laid down in D.S. Nakara & Others vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , is with respect to the impermissibility of making any distinction between the homogenous class of beneficiaries. Later, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the verdict in D.S. Nakara (supra) is confined to its facts and does not apply to every pay or pension revision.

¶84

From the report of the Anomaly Committee, it is clear that the cutoff date was fixed for lessening the financial load; for administrative convenience and for implementation of the timeline.

¶85

The reliance of the petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur and Others (2020) 14 SCC 625 , wherein the date of retirement, which was the basis for classification of the retired employees for grant of the benefit of enhanced revised pension, was held to be not valid for the reason o f the object of grant of benefit of revised pay being to upset the increased cost of living (it was in this context that it was held in the afore-noted case that such classification has no nexus with the object sought to be

¶86

Page No.# 17/18

¶87

achieved and, thus, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India), is inapt and not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶88

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners had the legitimate expectation for the reason that all past pay revisions were kick-started from 1^st January of the year when such revision was enacted.

¶89

In Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 399 , the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶90

“ 33. We are also not impressed by the argument that all medical benefits and facilities must be provided to ex- servicemen under the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation'. The doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' is a 'latest recruit' to a long list of concepts fashioned by Courts for review of administrative actions. No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of Administrative Law and particularly law relating to 'judicial review'. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue.

¶91

34. The expression 'legitimate expectation' appears to have been originated by Lord Denning, M.R. in the leading decision of Schmidt v. Secretary of State, [(1969) 1 All ER 904 : (1969) 2 WLR 337 : (1969) 2 Ch D 149]. In Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, [(1983) 2 All ER 346 : (1983) 2 AC 629], Lord Fraser referring to Schmidt stated;

¶92

"The expectations may be based on some statement or undertaking by, or on behalf of, the public authority which has the duty of making the decision, if the authority has, through its officers, acted in a way that would make it unfair or inconsistent with good administration for him to be denied such an inquiry.

¶93

Page No.# 18/18

¶94

(emphasis supplied)

¶95

35. In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised.”

¶96

Legitimate expectation cannot override administrative decisions or statutory prescriptions.

¶97

For the reason of the petitioners not having shown any hostile discrimination or absence of any intelligible differentia, and the cut-off date having been fixed keeping in mind the financial constraints and the administrative convenience, we have no option but to reject the petition.

¶98

Dismissed.

¶99

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶100

Comparing Assistant

Ramendra Deka and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra Deka and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Lucy Konyak Vs Smti Neizelhounuo Thur and 5 Ors.

The Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors. Vs Smti. Neizelhounuo Thur and Anr.

Shri Makut Nayak Vs State of Nagaland

The Union of India and 9 Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar

Dipankar Chanda and 35 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Laba Kt Baro and 36 Ors.