Gauhati High Court
Biswajit Das vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 March, 2017
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
WP(C) No.2879 of 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
02.03.2017
Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, Mr. G. Baishya,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6.
The case of the writ petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that he was originally appointed as a Block Development Officer (BDO) under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951, pursuant whereto he had joined his duties on 20.06.1984 in the Balijan Development Block in the district of Goalpara under the department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized by issuing notification dated 01.06.2001 giving retrospective effect to the same from 12.05.1994. On 31.03.2016 the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pension has not been settled by the department till date. That apart, the arrear salary payable to the petitioner for the period from 12.05.1994 to 01.06.2001 has also not been paid to him although other similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of such arrear salary.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, has invited the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 to contend that the petitioner was absent from duty during the period from 20.05.2014 to 31.12.2014 i.e. 165 days and the said period of absence has not been regularized by the department till date as it is not known whether the petitioner would be entitled to leave for such a long period. He submits that the department had sought the response of the respondent No.2 in the matter which is still awaited.
Responding to the said argument Mr. Islam has pointed out the letter at Annexure-4 to the writ petition issued by the office of the respondent No.2 to indicate that it has already been certified by the Accountant General, Assam that the petitioner would be entitled to commuted leave for 165 days with effect from 20.05.2014. In view of the above, submits Mr. Islam, there is no justifiable ground for the department to withhold the pension papers of the petitioner. He submits that although a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 07.04.2016, yet no action has been taken in the matter till date.
Mr. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (Accountant General, Assam) , submits that no papers have been received by the office of the Accountant General till date as a result of which the pension of the petitioner could not be settled from the end of the respondent No.2.
Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, submits that the issue regarding settlement of pension is required to be dealt with entirely by the office of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have no role to play in the matter.
From a careful examination of the material available on record it appears that the sole reason why the pension of the petitioner has not been settled till today is on account of the fact that the period of absence for 165 days by the writ petitioner has not been regularized till date by the department. The petitioner's explanation for the absence is available in the writ petition and it appears that he had suffered critical injuries in a motor accident which had compelled him to undergo prolonged medical treatment resulting in absence from duty for the said period. Since the respondent No.2 has already certified that the petitioner is entitled to commuted leave for 165 days, it would now be the responsibility of the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders regularizing the period of absence of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. It is also not denied by the department that the petitioner would be entitled to arrear salary for the period from 12.05.1994 to 01.06.2001, i.e. with effect from the date on which his services were regularized.
In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take appropriate steps for redressal of the same within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the respondent No.4 will take all necessary steps to ensure that the arrear salaries due and payable to the petitioner is made available to him at the earliest and also ensure that the pension papers of the petitioner is sent to the office of the Accountant General within the timeframe indicated above.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to cost.
JUDGE TUC