Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 864 (GAU)

MOLOY BORA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-05-25

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S Kemprai, learned counsel for the KAAC. 2. Being aggrieved by the Notification dated 03.06.2015, by which the petitioner was released from service from the post of Principal Secretary, KAAC with immediate effect, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioners grievance was that he was released from service without giving him any other place of posting and his release had been done without the approval of the State Government. 3. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has now been given a place of posting. The petitioners grievance in the present case now stands confined to the period from 29.10.2014 to 03.06.2015, wherein he worked as the Principal Secretary, KAAC. He submits that the KAAC has not given him his salary for the period from 29.10.2014 to 03.06.2015. 4. Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel submits that she does not have any instruction with regard to non-payment of salary to the petitioner for the above said period except that the petitioner had been released from service due to his actions having deteriorated the image of the council. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It is not the case of the parties that there is any disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not worked as Principal Secretary to the KAAC from the period 29.10.2014 to 03.06.2015. Accordingly, this Court finds that the actions of the respondents KAAC in not giving salary to the petitioner for the period stated above is arbitrary and unfair. The petitioner has to be paid for the service rendered by him. Further, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents despite nearly 3 years having elapsed. In the case of Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P. reported in (1993) Supp 4 SCC 46, the Apex Court has held that averments are deemed to be admitted if not controverted. 6. In view of above reasons, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his due salary for the period from 29.10.2014 to 03.06.2015, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of.