Gauhati High Court
Dr. Tapan Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 April, 2023
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010077432023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2106/2023
DR. TAPAN HAZARIKA
S/O LATE DHARANIDHAR HAZARIKA, R/O VILL-KONWARPARA, N.H.-15,
P.O. AND P.S.-MANGALDOI, DIST-DARRANG, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006
2:JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM
HENGERABARI
GUWAHATI
5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHAT
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 21.04.2023 Heard Mr. M. Nath, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. D. Borah, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. None appears on behalf of the Accountant General(A & E), Assam-respondent No.5 on call.
2. Issue notice making it returnable on 31st of May, 2023.
3. As the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are duly represented by Ms. D. Borah, the learned counsel, extra copies of the writ petition be served upon her by 25 th of April, 2023.
4. As regards the respondent No. 5, Mr. M. Nath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam has Standing Counsels and the petitioner may be given the liberty to serve an extra copy of the writ petition upon one of the Standing Counsel of the Office of the Accountant General (A & E).
5. Taking into account the same, the petitioner is directed to serve an extra copy of the writ petition upon the Standing Counsel of the Office of the Accountant General (A & E).
6. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was put under suspension vide an order dated 2/5/2006 pending drawal of departmental proceedings. However, there was no department proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
7. In the meantime, on the basis of an order dated 13/3/2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 959/2020, this Court directed the respondent authorities to verify as to whether Page No.# 3/4 the further continuance of the suspension was necessary and pay the subsistence allowance as per law.
8. It appears subsequently vide an order dated 1/2/2021 that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department have passed an order observing that although the petitioner was placed under suspension but no departmental proceedings was drawn against the petitioner. It was further observed that not initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner should not make such a person eligible for pensionery benefits. It was observed that the petitioner showed no intention to join Government service from the date of his suspension on 2/5/2006. On the basis thereof the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam vide the order dated 1/2/2021 passed that the petitioner be reinstated into Government service from the date of taking over charge and upon reinstatement he be posted as M & HO-I-Chamuapara MPHC, Darrang; the subsistence allowance be granted to the petitioner as per FR 53 of FR and SR during the suspension period and the period of suspension from 2/5/2006 till the date of reinstatement from the date of taking over charge in respect to the petitioner will not be treated as on duty for pension purpose.
9. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 1/2/2021 for not treating the period of suspension as on duty, as admittedly till date, there has been no departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by non-payment of the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% after three months of the initial period of suspension in terms with FR 53.
10. The respondents shall on the returnable date apprise this Court as to whether there has been any departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner till date and as to why the period of suspension should not be treated as on duty and the petitioner be entitled to arrear salary as well as for pensionery benefits and further as to whether the subsistence allowance in terms with FR 53 has been paid to the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner.
11. Liberty is given to the petitioner to mention the matter for upgrading.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant