Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 255 (GAU)

RUPA RANI DEVI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-02-28

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
1. Heard Ms. A. Devi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. The petitioner’s case is that she was appointed as Junior-Hindi Teacher in the Bidyadhar Sarma Memorial High School and the Managing Committee of the School had approved her appointment vide resolution No.3 adopted in its meeting dated 08.11.1986. The school has since been provincialised. Ever since her appointment, the petitioner has been continuing in the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) without getting a single promotion. 3. Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) notified by the State Government of Assam vide notification dated 25.05.2011 all State Government employees who have not got a single promotion after completion of 10 (ten) years is entitled to the benefit of ACPS in the first level and thereafter again on completion of 24 years if nor regular promotion is made, then the second level of ACPS benefit is required to be conferred. The learned counsel submits that the scheme was made operational with effect from 01.01.2011 and since the petitioner has already completed more than 29 years of service, she is entitled to at least one benefit under the ACPS as a matter of right. However, no such benefit has been given to her till today. Ms. Devi has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 25.02.2014 issued by the Inspector of Schools, JDC, Jorhat addressed to the respondent No.5 directing that the dues of the petitioner including the arrears of ACPS should be paid to her without any further delay. 4. The respondents have not filed any affidavit but have prayed for further time to obtain instruction. 5. It appears from the record that the petitioner was placed under suspension during her service tenure but later on reinstated. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether any departmental proceeding was ever drawn against her. Ms. Devi, however, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension not on account of any fault on her part and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against her. 6. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether any departmental proceeding was ever drawn against her. Ms. Devi, however, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension not on account of any fault on her part and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against her. 6. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner was placed under suspension, since she has already been reinstated, hence, that would not in any way affect the right of the petitioner to receive the benefit of ACPS if she is otherwise entitled to receive the same under the scheme. 7. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the respondent No.3 to take necessary steps to ensure that the case of the petitioner is placed before the screening committee, within four weeks from today, so as to examine her entitlement for receipt of the benefit of the ACPS. On such examination if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the same, the consequential benefits be paid to her within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.