INDRA KANTA GOGOI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Indra Kanta Gogoi
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
SUMAN SHYAM,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The writ petitioner in this case has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30/06/18, while serving as LDA in the office of the DEEO, Dibrugarh, by the order dated 05/05/2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to his arrest made by the Police in connection with Dibrugarh PS case No. 299/2008 registered under Section 120(B)/420/468/34 IPC as he was detained for more than 42 hours in the Police custody. The petitioner was, however, allowed to draw subsistence allowances during the period of suspension. Thereafter, on 03/02/2011, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner in contemplation of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 03/02/2011. However, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the show cause notice dated 03/02/2011. On the contrary, by issuing the order dated 14/07/2011, the petitioner was reinstated in service in the post of LDA. The grievance of the petitioner is that although his name was forwarded before the authorities for promotion to the post of UDA way back in the year 2004, no action has been taken in the matter till date. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the authorities have unduly withheld the benefits accruing to the petitioner due to increment in pay since the year 2010 as well as the benefits available to him under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. That apart, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the period during which he was placed under suspension i.e. 05/05/2010 to 14/07/2011 has not been regularized by the authorities till today as a result of which, the petitioner has been deprived of pay benefits to which he is entitled to under the law.
(3.) Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that since his client has already retired from service w.e.f. 30/06/2018, the relief for issuing a direction for considering his case for promotion to the post of UDA may not be alive at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that his client is entitled to regularization of the period of service during which he was placed under suspension and payment of annual increments which have been withheld by the authorities without any valid ground. Mr. Saikia has also invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on 17/04/2018, wherein it has been stated that the department has neither initiated nor contemplated any fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It has, however, been mentioned therein that due to pendency of the investigation in connection with the Dibrugarh PS Case No. 299/2008, the respondents are not in a position to regularize the period of suspension of the writ petitioner with effect from 05/05/2010 to 14/07/2011.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.