Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, on 16.05.2023, the Inspector of Schools (I/C), Majuli had served one backdated order, dated 18.04.2023, to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was released from all temporary engagement at the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli, on the basis of a purported letter dated 05.03.2023, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam; whereby the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli was directed to take immediate steps to release the petitioner by issuing a Speaking Order, as per Government Rules and procedures, by 18.04.2023; and since the petitioner‟s petition for not to disturb his engagement in the current post, till his normal superannuation age, is still pending before this Court, the respondent officials cannot initiate a parallel proceeding; and it is well settled that when the Court is in-seisin of a matter, an administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter at its own ipse dixit, as it will amount to directly interfering with the dispensation of justice by the Courts of law. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the order dated 18.04.2023, which was served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2023; and also the letter, dated 05.03.2023. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, without taking leave of this Court, the respondent authorities have released the petitioner and before releasing him, they have not given him any opportunity of being heard and thereby, violated the principles of natural justice."

6.1. Referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), Mr. Kalita submits that the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph No. 22, has directed the State Government to pay minimum of the pay-scale to Muster Roll Workers, Work-charged Workers and similarly placed employees, working since last 10 years (not in sanctioned post), w.e.f. 01.08.2017, and that the action of the respondent authorities, in discharging the petitioner is contrary to the observation made by this Court and also by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. Referring to another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Akaddas Ali Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2014) 4 GLR 3; Mr. Kalita submits that when the Court is in-seisin of the matter, then the administrative authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject and record a finding, as it would amount to interfering with the dispensing of justice by the Court. Under such circumstances, Mr. Kalita has contended to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023, which, according to him is a backdated order; served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2023, by the Inspector of Schools (i/c), Majuli and also the letter dated 05.03.2023, and to reinstate the petitioner in his present post and also to grant him the minimum scale of pay till his retirement.

9. It is also to be noted here that in paragraph No. 19 of the WP(C) No. 2976/2023, the petitioner has categorically stated that the order dated 18.04.2023, is a backdated order. Similar statement is also being made in the prayer No. (a), in paragraph No. 32 of the said writ petition, that the order dated 18.04.2024 is a backdated order.

9.1. However, the respondent authorities have not filed any affidavit- in-opposition in this petition controverting the aforementioned statement made by the petitioner. Since the statement made in paragraph No. 19 and also in prayer No. (a), in paragraph No. 32 of the WP(C) No. 2976/2023, by the petitioner, remained untraversed, the same has to be accepted as „admission‟.