Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 379 (GAU)

Maya Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2011-04-28

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Ms A.S. Lodh, learned State Counsel for the Respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed on 6-11-2000 making a challenge to the order dated 17-8-79 (Annexure-D) by which she was reverted to her former post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) from the promotional post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) to which she was promoted on ad hoc basis vide order dated 16-8-78. Thus, the grievance to the order dated 17-8-79 for the grievance relating to reversion was agitated by filing the instant writ petition after nearly 21 years. That being the position, the said grievance cannot be entertained in a writ petition filed after 21 years. 3. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, as reflected in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner was subsequently promoted as UDA on production of the caste certificate which she failed to produce earlier. Thus, the first grievance of the Petitioner made in the writ petition stood redressed. So far as the second grievance of the Petitioner is concerned, the same is the Annexure-G letter dated 21-1-2000 by which the Petitioner was requested to deposit the amount of Rs. 36,790/-. According to the said communication, the amount was erroneously paid to her. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the pay of the Petitioner was erroneously fixed and/or stepped up in reference to one Smt. Krishna Roy, UDC on the analogy that her junior was drawing more salary. However, it was found that the pay of the Petitioner was stepped up in reference to said Smt. Krishna Roy erroneously and accordingly, the order of stepping up was cancelled. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that before ordering the recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 36,790/- the Petitioner was not put to any kind of notice. He further submits that the stepping up of pay was rightly done and thus could not have been ordered for recovery of the said amount by the impugned letter dated 21-1-2000. On the other hand, Ms A.S. Lodh, learned State Counsel for the Respondents submits that in case of wrong fixation of pay the authority is always empowered to get the things corrected and to take consequential action. 6. On the other hand, Ms A.S. Lodh, learned State Counsel for the Respondents submits that in case of wrong fixation of pay the authority is always empowered to get the things corrected and to take consequential action. 6. When the writ petition was filed, the Petitioner was aged about 52 years. By now 11 years have passed and she must have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to make appropriate representation to the authority if she still nourishes the grievance relating to the aforementioned communication directing her to refund the amount of Rs. 36,790/-. In the event of making such representation, the authority shall dispose of the same by a speaking order.