Askar Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010235872023

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6292/2023

¶6

ASKAR ALI AHMED S/O- LATE HARMUZ ALI, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O- LACHIMA, P.S- MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶10

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶11

NDC NALBARI DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM.

¶12

4:ASSAM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN MISSION (SSA) REP. BY THE MISSION DIRECTOR SSA KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

5:THE TREASURY OFFICER BELSOR DIST- NALBARI ASSAM 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI-21 7:THE I/C PRINCIPAL MUGDI MILAN H.S SCHOOL

¶15

P.O- MUGDI P.S- MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781312 8:THE SMDC MUGDI MILAN H.S SCHOOL REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶16

P.O- MUGDI P.S- MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781312 9:CHAMED ALI I/C PRINCIPAL MUGDI MILAN H.S SCHOOL P.O- MUGDI P.S- MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78131

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MS S DAS,MR F U BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. S K MEDHI(FOR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶18

Page No.# 3/6

¶19

(R-6))),MS A HUSSAIN (R-7,8,9),H G DAISY (R-7,8,9),R BEGUM (R-7,8,9),MR. J AHMED (R7,8,9),SC, SSA,SC, FINANCE,SC, AG

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶21

ORDER

¶22

03.06.2025

¶23

Heard Shri FU Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. Musahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department; Shri H. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, SSA; Ms. RR Saikia, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri SK Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam and Shri J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 9.

¶24

As per the facts projected, the petitioner had superannuated from service as a Principal of the Mugdi Milan H.S. School in the district of Nalbari on 31.01.2021. Though the petitioner had received his leave salary, GIS, DCRG, Provisional Pension as well as regular pension, he was not paid the GPF amount of Rs.9,30,893/- and also the salary for the last month i.e. January, 2021 amounting to Rs.90,492/-. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had utilized his own money amounting to Rs.2,52,019/- for Mid Day Meal (MDM) which was as per instructions of the SMDC with a contention that the said amount would be refunded. However, the same was not done and accordingly with these causes of action, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶25

At the outset, Shri Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that during the pendency of this case, the GPF amount has been released to him and therefore, the present dispute is with regard to one monthly salary and the amount the petitioner had spent for arranging the MDM. He has

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

submitted that both the amounts are entitled to by the petitioner. As regards the amount pertaining to the MDM, the learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner had utilized his own money only for the interest of the School and as per the instructions of the SMDC and therefore, the authorities are duty bound to replenish the said amount to the petitioner. He has also submitted that the amount has been sanctioned by the SSA and there is an apprehension that the amount would be misappropriated.

¶28

Ms. Musahary, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that so far as the salary for the month of January, 2021 is concerned, the Department had indeed taken up the issue as the documents connected to the service records of the petitioner are presently with the Pension Department. She has also informed that unless the petitioner’s signature is given in the aforesaid records, the said aspect of releasing the salary for one month would not be possible. As regards the claim for the MDM, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from the pleadings exchanged, it appear that there are disputes raised as to whether the petitioner had actually spent his own money. She has also informed that there was some kind of enquiry made which appears from the records.

¶29

Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 9 has strenuously opposed the claim for the MDM amount. He submits that the respondent no. 7 had joined the services in the January, 2021 and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Audit Report, as per which the genuineness of the transaction said to be made, has been doubted. He has also submitted that the records do not reveal that any approval was taken from the SMDC and there is no Resolution in that regard by the SMDC. He has also alleged that false vouchers have been submitted by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid claim.

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

Shri Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically refuted the aforesaid allegation and has reiterated that the vouchers which he had submitted are genuine and everything was done in a transparent manner. He has also referred to the Enquiry Report and submits that contention of the petitioner appears to be substantiated.

¶32

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and also the fact that the substantial relief in the form of GPF amount has already been released to the petitioner, the dispute boils down to the aspect of claim of the salary for January, 2021 and the amount of Rs.2,52,019/- for the MDM. As regards the claim for salary for the month of January, 2021, it is directed that the Secondary Education Department would make necessary correspondence with the Pension Department by involving the petitioner, so as to ensure that the signature can be put in the documents wherever, it is necessary and in that regard the petitioner would render his full cooperation. Thereafter, the amount be released to the petitioner.

¶33

The entire exercise be conducted and completed within a period of 45 days from today.

¶34

As regards the claim for the amount pertaining to the MDM, it appears that the aspect is a disputed one. While the petitioner has contended that such expense was made by him as per the instructions of SMDC and in the interest of the School, the present Principal had disputed the said claim on the basis of the records which have been observed above.

¶35

In view of the above, the SSA, in consultation with the Secondary Education Department would make an enquiry on the same and if it is found that the petitioner had actually spent the money for the purpose of MDM, the

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

same be released to him. If however it is found that the claim was made on the basis of forged documents, appropriate legal action would be taken in accordance with law.

¶38

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Askar Ali Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Askar Ali Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeta Bhuyan Dutta and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Berpung Raja Basumatary @ Birpung Raja Basumatary Vs Anurag Goel, IAS and Anr.

Monida Khatun Vs M S Manivannan, IAS and 2 Ors.

Jaymati Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gita Rani Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prakash Deka Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.