Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 112 (GAU)

Basant Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

2001-04-25

D.BISWAS

body2001
Heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and also Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Additional Central Govt Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petitioners herein earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 115 of 1999 for appropriate directions for extending all benefits and concessions made available vide office memorandum No.22014/3/83-E.IVZ dated 14.12.83 read with OM No. 20014/16/86/E.IV/E(B) dated 1.12.88 and OM No. F.II(2)/97-E.II (B) dated 22.7.98 issued by the Ministry of Finance. Their case was that the benefits given under the aforesaid circulars to the Central Govt employees posted in the North Eastern Region should also be made available to them since they have been transferred and posted in the North Eastern region. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by the judgment and order dated 22.11.99 with the following directions: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of this Court's judgment and order dated 14.1.1994 as aforesaid, this case is finally disposed of with a direction to respondents to grant all the benefits and concessions available vide OM No. 220147 3/83-E.IVZ dated 14.12.83 read with OM No.20014/16/86/E.IV/ (B)E-11 dated 1.12.88 OM No. FII(2)/97-E-II dated 22.7.98 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure to the petitioners being Central Govt Civilian Employees posted in the North Eastern Region. This writ petition stands, disposed of accordingly. No costs." 3. It is stated by Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned counsel that the respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and having failed to succeed there, preferred a SLR The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 25.1.2001. Hence, Mr. Michael submits that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioners since they are posted in the North Eastern region. 4. It appears that the Govt of India vide notification dated 8th August, 2000 conveyed sanction of the President of India granting concessions to the writ petitioners in pursuance of the orders passed in Writ Petition (C) 115 of 1999. Petitioners grievance is that they have not been given the benefits from the date when they were transferred and posted in the North Eastern region. 5. Mr. Petitioners grievance is that they have not been given the benefits from the date when they were transferred and posted in the North Eastern region. 5. Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Additional Central Govt Standing Counsel, however, raised objection on the ground that the sanction dated 8th August, 2000 does not specify that the benefits are to be extended from the date when the writ petitioners were posted in the North Eastern region or from the date when the notifications were brought into force, as the case may be. According to him, the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim the concessions from any date prior to the date of issue of this notification i.e., 8th August, 2000. 6. Mr. Choudhury further pointed out that the copy of the order dated 25.1.2001 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 8103 of 2000 refers to the judgment and order dated 22.2.2000 passed in Writ Appeal 6 of 2000 by the Gauhati High Court at Agartala Bench and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said SLP was directed against the relevant judgment of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.5 of 2000. He also referred to the copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court which shows that the order was passed in connection with Writ Appeal 6 of 2000 and not Writ Appeal 5 of 2000. 7. I have carefully examined the notification/sanction dated 8th August, 2000. It appears that the concessions have been extended by the President in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 22.11.99 in Writ Petition No. 115 of 1999. This notification does not indicate anywhere that the concessions are extended from the date of issue of the notification or from the date of concurrence given by the Ministry of Defence. It may be stated here that when the benefits of a circular is extended to a group of employees earlier left out, the said benefits should be extended as it is unless it is expressly provided otherwise. Since there is no indication that the benefits would be given from a later date, the legal presumption will be that it is intended to extend the benefits from the date when the circulars were given effect to. Therefore, I do not find sufficient force in the argument advanced by Mr. Choudhury that the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits on and from 8th August, 2000 only. Therefore, I do not find sufficient force in the argument advanced by Mr. Choudhury that the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits on and from 8th August, 2000 only. 8. With regard to the other objection, it may be stated that the mistake in quoting the writ appeal No. may be by way of inadvertence. The learned Addl CGSC, could not make any submission at the Bar as to whether any SLP was preferred by the Union and if so, what was the outcome. Be that as it may, the notification dated 8th August, 2000 (Annexure V) clearly indicates that the benefits a have been extended subject to the outcome of SLP filed to be filed in the Supreme Court. That being the position, I see no bar in releasing the benefits as per sanction dated 8th August, 2000. If the order of the Division Bench is eventually reversed, it would be open for the respondent authority to recover/adjust the benefits paid against future payment. The fact remains that the President issued sanction for extension of the benefits/concessions to the writ petitioners as per the circulars mentioned herein before and since no cut off date has been mentioned in the sanction order, the inevitable conclusion would be that the benefits/concessions would be extended with effect from the date when the writ petitioners joined their respective assignments in the North Eastern Region. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to extend the concessions as per circulars mentioned above to the writ petitioners transferred and posted in the North Eastern Region with effect from the date when they took over charge in the North Eastern Region. It is needless to point out that the concessions shall be made available to the writ petitioners who have retired by now or transferred back to other regions only for the period they have served in the North Eastern Region. 10. Cost is quantified at Rs. 10,000 to be equally apportioned by the writ petitioners.