Kiran Sahariah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Kiran Sahariah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to revisit the issue of fixation of pay in terms of the judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 in WP(C) No.1806/2009 and connected matters, guided by the judgments in Civil Rule No. 6567/1998 and WP(C) 1806/2009; the entire exercise to be completed within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a copy of the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent no.2 with all enclosures.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, serving under the Directorate of Health Services (Family Welfare), Assam, is entitled to re-fixation of pay under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, having been paid lesser pay and emoluments than what she was receiving under the pre-revised scale, a benefit given to other Government Departments.

Court's answer

The issue regarding fixation of pay is required to be revisited by respondent no.2 (the Director of Health Services) in terms of the judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 in WP(C) No.1806/2009 and connected matters, and while considering the petitioner's case, respondent no.2 would be guided by the referred judgments in Civil Rule No. 6567/1998 and WP(C) 1806/2009.

Ratio / Principle

The entire exercise of revisiting the pay fixation shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, along with a copy of the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no.2 with all enclosures.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Soumitra Saikia, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by a serving employee of the Directorate of Health Services (Family Welfare), Assam, who claimed re-fixation of pay under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 (ROP Rules, 1990) on the ground that she was being paid lesser pay and emoluments than under the pre-revised scale, a benefit given to other Government Departments. The Court recorded the Standing Counsel's statement that the excess drawal was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud but resulted from an erroneous pay fixation, that the matter had been referred to the competent authority for waiver of the excess amount, and that steps had been taken for processing the petitioner's pension case. Acting in terms of its judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 in WP(C) No.1806/2009 (Bipul Chandra Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.) and connected matters, the Court directed respondent no.2 (the Director of Health Services) to revisit the issue of pay fixation, guided by the judgments in Civil Rule No. 6567/1998 (Jibeswar Das & Ors., dated 18.11.2002) and WP(C) 1806/2009, and to complete the entire exercise within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the writ petition and respondent no.2's affidavit-in-opposition with enclosures.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010237552024

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5911/2024

KIRAN SAHARIAH W/O- HARI KAKATI, R/O- BARBARI, H.NO-37, DEHAL ARNAM PATH, P.O- HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-36, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR, JANATA BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES HENGRABARI KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-36

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR JANATA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-6.

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BELTOLA MAIDAMGAON GUWAHATI- 29 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

5:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER

Page No.# 2/3

O/O THE PR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

BELTOLA MAIDAMGAON GUWAHATI- 29 KAMRUP (M) ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR, MR. L Deka,MR. CHARAN DEKA,MR. A. GAYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH AND F W, SC, AG (A AND E)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

04.06.2026

Heard Mr. C. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department; and Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General.

2. This writ petitioner has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India who is serving under Directorate of Health Services (Family Welfare), Assam. It is projected that the petitioner has been deprived of benefit of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 (ROP Rules, 1990 for short), which was given to other Government Departments. The case of the petitioner is that their pay is required to be re-fixed on the ground that the petitioners are being paid lesser pay and emoluments than what they were receiving earlier under the prerevised scale of pay.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment and order dated 18.11.2002 passed

Page No.# 3/3

by this Court in Civil Rule No. 6567/1998 (Jibeswar Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.) and judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) 1806/2009 (Bipul Chandra Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.) and connected matters.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department submits that the excess drawal was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner but resulted from an erroneous pay fixation. The matter has already been referred to the competent authority for waiver of the excess amount, and necessary steps have been taken for processing the petitioner’s pension case.

5. In view of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that in terms of hereinbefore referred judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 passed in WP(C) No.1806/2009 and other connected matters, the issue regarding fixation of pay is required to be revisited by respondent no.2. It is provided that while considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 would be guided by hereinbefore referred judgment and order dated 16.11.2012 passed in Civil Rule No. 6567/1998 and WP(C) 1806/2009.

6. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of (i) the writ petition, (2) copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no.2 with all enclosures.

7 . Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant