Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 507 (GAU)

Dinadayal Rabha v. State Of Assam

2022-05-13

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.) – 1. Heard Mr. P Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R Barpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the Irrigation Department though name has been shown in the cause list. 2. The petitioners are erstwhile employees of Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (in short ASMIDC). The said corporation was incorporated for the purpose of improving, establishing, executing shallow tubewells and low lift project in the State of Assam for advancement of Minor Irrigation. 3. Initially by notification dtd. 13/5/2005 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department offered VRS benefits to 302 numbers of regular employees including the petitioner on the basis of notification dtd. 20/9/2004. Though such VRS was implemented, alleging non release of benefits under such VRS, the petitioners approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 4954/2006. By order dtd. 2/12/2008, the said writ petition was disposed of by this court directing to complete the payment of VRS benefits to the petitioners. 4. During the pendency of such writ proceeding by a notification dtd. 15/2/2006 the policy of voluntary retirement was revised. The said voluntary retirement scheme was implemented specially for the employees of State level public enterprises of Assam. Clause 1 of the said revised policy provides that amongst others the package under VRS shall include unpaid salary/wages (basic pay + DA) up to the date of acceptance of VRS by the employee. The present dispute relates to the meaning of salary. The petitioners contend that the unpaid salary shall include House Rent Allowance (HRA), Medical Allowance (MA) and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) and though other benefits are paid, the said allowance have not been paid. 5. This court while dealing with a similar issue and relating to VRS involving the employees of State Fed, came to a conclusion that HRA, MA and CCA are the component of the salary. On the basis of such finding this court vide order dtd. 6/1/2014 directed the respondent Corporation in the said writ petition being No. WP(C) 994/2007 to release HRA, MA and CCA to the employees of State Fed. 6. In the said judgment this court also interfered with the decision of a review meeting dtd. On the basis of such finding this court vide order dtd. 6/1/2014 directed the respondent Corporation in the said writ petition being No. WP(C) 994/2007 to release HRA, MA and CCA to the employees of State Fed. 6. In the said judgment this court also interfered with the decision of a review meeting dtd. 26/3/2009, whereby HRA and MA was refused to be paid as not part of salary. 7. Subsequently relying on the said judgment, this court dealing with similar claim of the employees of Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation following the aforesaid judgment in the State Fed (supra) directed payment of HRA and MA. In the said case CCA was not claimed by the petitioner. 8. The respondent Irrigation Department by way of filing an affidavit took a stand that entire VRS benefits had been granted to the petitioners. However, the said affidavit is silent about the contention of the petitioners regarding HRA, MA and CCA. 9. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that though they had been paid other benefits, HRA, MA and CCA were not paid to them and they are entitled for the same in view of the pronouncement of this court in State Fed (supra) and in Assam Agro Industries Develop Corporation (supra). 10. From the aforesaid two pronouncement and the facts of the present petitioners, it is clear that the same scheme of voluntary retirement was implemented in respect of the present petitioners also. Therefore, the declaration of this court holding that HRA, MA and CCA shall form part of the salary is also applicable to the present case. 11. In that view of the matter, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for HRA, MA and CCA and the same need to be calculated and included in salary for purpose of declaring VRS benefits and accordingly, the respondent Irrigation Department is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid term and if HRA, MA and CCA as per the clause 1(e) of the VRS scheme dtd. 15/2/2006 has not been paid, the same be paid within a period of two months from receipt of certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioners before the respondent authority.