Gauhati High Court
Bankim Kumar Deka vs The State Of Assam & 6 Ors on 17 July, 2017
Author: Nelson Sailo
Bench: Nelson Sailo
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COUR T OF ASSAM , NAGALAND, M IZOR AM AND AR UNACHAL
PR ADESH )
W P(C) No.2309 of 2017
Sri Bankim Kumar Deka
Son of Late Srihari Deka
Resident of No.1 Madhabpur, Noonmati,
P.S.-Noonmati, Guwahati-781021,
Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry
and Veterinary Department, Assam,
Sachivalaya, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
and 6 (six) Others
..... Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.D. Goswami ...... Senior Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R. Borpujari,
Ms. A. Neog, ...... Advocate
Mr. M.R. Adhikari, ........ G.A. Assam,
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 17th July, 2017
WP(C) No.2309 of 2017
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, the respondent Nos. 7. Ms. A. Neog, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 and Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has raised his grievance for non- payment of his salary since the month of January, 2017, while being appointed as Sub-Engineer (Civil) on officiating post under the establishment of the respondent No.5. The petitioner who is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering was initially appointed as Muster Roll Worker under the establishment of the respondent No.3 on 25.03.1992 (Annexure-1). His service as such was continued until he was appointed on Work Charged basis vide order dated 01.08.1995 (Anenxure-2). The petitioner thereafter was allowed to officiate as Draftsman in the establishment of the respondent No.5 vide order dated 20.02.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.1375-3375 per month. The said appointment was against the vacancy caused due to the suspension of the employee concerned. The arrangement was also made for the period the employee concerned was placed under suspension.
3. The petitioner's appointment as officiating Draftsman continued against the suspension vacancy but thereafter, he was allowed to officiate temporarily as Sub-Engineer (Civil) against existing vacant post under the establishment of the respondent No.5 vide order dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure-6). By the said order the petitioner was given his pay in the structure of Pay Band-2 i.e. Rs.5,200/- to Rs.20,200/- with G.P. Rs.3,300/- per month. The petitioner thereafter pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2016 released from the post of Work Charged Draftsman to enable him to join in the Work Charged Sub-Engineer (Civil) under the establishment of the respondent No.5. It may be also noticed that the order dated 08.02.2016 was approved by the NC Hills Autonomous Council, Halflong. The petitioner thereafter received his regular monthly salary in the pay scale as indicated above. But, however, since the month of January, 2017, the petitioner was not paid any salary and therefore, he submitted a representation to the WP(C) No.2309 of 2017 3 respondent No.5 for releasing his salary on 17.03.2017 (Annexure-9). In reply to the petitioner's representation the respondent No.5 wrote to the petitioner informing him that salary was not being paid to him since the respondent No.7 i.e. the Treasury Officer, Halflong, objected to his salary cheque for the month of January, 2017. It was, however, stated that appropriate reply was given to the Treasury Officer by the respondent No.5 on 10.03.2017 (Annexure-12), informing him that the petitioner was employed as a work charged staff and his service was not regularised. The arrangement was temporary and it was done on the basis of the approval given by the Autonomous Council authority for smooth functioning of development works in the engineering cell of the department concerned. The said communication was made on 29.03.2017 (Annexure-10) and the communication dated 10.03.2017 was also enclosed along with the said letter.
4. Mr. B.D. Goswami, the leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authorities concerned have illegally withheld the salary of the petitioner for the month of January, 2017. The petitioner has been allowed to officiate as Sub-Engineer (Civil) against the existing vacant post under the establishment of the respondent No.5 pursuant to the approval given by the NC Hills Autonomous Council. The petitioner in terms of the order dated 08.02.2016 has also been allowed to draw his pay in the structure of Pay Band-2 i.e. Rs.5,200/- to Rs.20,200/- with G.P. Rs.3,300/- per month. Therefore, the respondent No.7 could not have withheld the pay of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been working in different posts on work charged basis and has not been regularised. As contended by the respondent No.7, the communication dated 10.03.2017 made by the respondent No.5 clearly shows that the petitioner has not been regularised to the post in question and the same has been done as an arrangement on temporary basis with the approval of the Autonomous Council. Mr. Goswami, therefore, prays before this Court that the respondent authorities should be directed to release the salary of the petitioner.
5. Appearing for the respondent No.7 Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel, submits that the petitioner having been appointed only on work charged basis cannot be given the regular pay scale as indicated in the order dated 08.02.2016.
WP(C) No.2309 of 2017 4He submits that the Grade pay of Rs.3,300/- can only be given to a regular employee of the department.
6. Ms. A. Neog, the learned counsel appearing for the Autonomous Council submits that since a clarification has already been made by the respondent concerned on 10.03.2017, the respondent No.7 has to accordingly act upon the clarification on his part.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. It is seen that the respondents are yet to file an affidavit-in-opposition in the matter, but, however, considering the fact that the dispute relates to non-payment of salary to the petitioner since the month of January, 2017, and the fact that the petitioner has not been regularised in service through he was posted as a work charged Sub-Engineer (Civil) on officiating basis under the establishment of the respondent No.5, in my considered opinion the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities concerned, more particularly, to the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to settle the matter and pay the monthly salary of the petitioner in terms of his entitlement since the petitioner admittedly is a work-charged employee under the respondent No.5 establishment on officiating basis. The respondent authorities concerned will naturally have to take into consideration the arrear salaries of the petitioner from the month of January, 2017 as well as the current salary.
8. It is ordered accordingly.
9. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.
JUDGE sumita WP(C) No.2309 of 2017