Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 453 (GAU)

Nasiruddin S. K. v. State of Assam

2008-06-24

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioners, retired Assistant Teachers of two High Schools of the State are before this Court being aggrieved by the decision of the State Respondents to effect deduction from their pension computable on the basis of the extended scale of pay enjoyed by them during their service tenure. 2. I have heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the Respondent No. 2. None appears for the other Respondents. 3. The uncontroverted pleaded case of the Petitioners is that, they had joined as Assistant Teachers as above in 1970 and 1973 respectively. They were granted the extended scale of pay under Rule 11 of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') with effect from 1.7.1988. They retired from service on 31.10.2003 and 31.3.2003 respectively. In course of processing their pension papers, the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri District Circle, Dhubri ordered for recovery of varying amounts from their retiral benefits for the purported excess drawal by them while enjoying the extended scale of pay which, according to the State authorities, they were not entitled to. 4. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents. 5. Mr. Rafique has argued that a plain reading of Rule 11 of the Rules makes it clear that a government servant without the prospect of any promotion to any higher post, completing atleast 15 years of continuous of satisfactory service in the same post, is entitled to the extended scale of pay as contemplated therein. As there is no dispute that the Petitioners on the dates of their retirement had put in unblemished 15 years of service in the same post, they were rightly sanctioned the benefit of the extended scale of pay under the Rules and therefore, the impugned action is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Counsel further urged that the Petitioners also do not suffer from any disqualification and/or deficiency in terms of other prescriptions in Rule 11 of the Rules. 6. Mr. Goswami, on the basis of the pleadings available on record has not been able to refute the above contentions. 7. Ms. Verma, submitted that having regard to the nature of the controversy raised, she has no comment to offer. 8. 6. Mr. Goswami, on the basis of the pleadings available on record has not been able to refute the above contentions. 7. Ms. Verma, submitted that having regard to the nature of the controversy raised, she has no comment to offer. 8. In the factual premise as narrated hereinabove and on a reading of Rule 11 of the Rules, the Petitioners in the estimate of this Court were entitled to the benefits of the extended scale of pay thereunder as conferred on them. In absence of any counter by the State Respondents, it is not possible to comprehend with clarity, the justification for the impugned order. 9. Mr. Rafique in support of his contention has drawn the attention of this Court to a determination made amongst others in W.P. (C) No. 3085/2006 (disposed of on 27.9.2006) which discloses the plea on behalf of the State Respondents to the effect that the period of 15 years is computable from the date of grant of time scale of pay to the incumbent concerned. Assuming that this has been the reason in support of the impugned decision, it is the unhesitant opinion of this Court that the same is ex facie untenable in the teeth of Rule 11 as referred to hereinabove as correctly reproduced on behalf of the Petitioners. Rule 11 does not envisage enumeration of the qualifying service of 15 years from the date of receipt of the time scale of pay. 10. On a totality of the considerations as alluded hereinabove, the impugned decision is unsustainable in law which is hereby interfered with. 11. Mr. Rafique informs this Court on instructions that in the meantime, deductions have already been made. In view of the decision recorded as above, the State Respondents would refund the amount so deducted to the Petitioners within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The process of computation of the retiral benefits of the Petitioners on the basis of the extended scale of pay should be completed within a period of six (6) months herefrom. In case, the Respondents fail to complete the process as ordered, the amount payable to the Petitioners would carry interest @ 6% per annum. 12. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petition allowed