NANDESWAR KALITA AND ORS. Vs. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein were the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 4538 of 1996 wherein they prayed for an appropriate Writ and/or direction against the official respondents to step up their basic pay to that of their juniors in the cadre of Stenographer Grade-I in service of this court at its principal Seat. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 25.11.1998 has dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H. Roy and Mr. R. Agarwal, Advocates for the appellants as well as Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 has also been heard.

(3.) The appellants had filed the above Civil Rule contending inter alia, that they were all serving as Grade-I Stenographers in this Court, having been appointed under the relevant Rules. The petitioner No. 1 after being initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-II, was temporarily appointed as Stenographer Grade-I by Notification dated 27.2.1982 and he joined as Stenographer Grade-I w.e.f. 1.3.1982. He was, thereafter, confirmed in the said post with effect from 1.3.1983 and, thereafter, was temporarily posted as Senior Grade Stenographer with effect from 10.12.1993. The petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 13 were appointed on various dates as Stenographer Grade-I in this court whereas, the petitioner Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 were initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-II and, thereafter, were promoted as Stenographer Grade-I on different dates. The respondent No. 5 was appointed as Grade-I Stenographer and, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were initially appointed in the Grade-II and, thereafter, were promoted as Grade-I Stenographers on various dates. The respondent No. 4 served as Stenographer Grade-I till 31.3.1982 whereafter, he resigned from service and joined the Bar. Subsequently, he again approached this court for being appointed in the service. Accordingly, by order dated 8.12.1984, he was appointed temporarily as Stenographer Grade - I in the scale of pay of Rs. 1125-1975 with effect from the date of assumption of charge. The appointment order clearly mentioned that his appointment was a fresh one and that he would not be entitled to any benefit of his past services. The respondent No. 4 accepting this stipulation contained in the said order of appointment, joined as Stenographer Grade-I on 2.4.1985 as a fresh appointee. However, later on, on the representation made by him, his pay was refixed by taking note of the services rendered by him prior to his resignation on 31.13.1982 and to that extent, the order of appointment dated 8.12.1984 was modified by an order dated 6.5.1986 passed by the then chief Justice of this Court. To have a birds eye view of the relevant service particulars of the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, it is profitable to extract hereinbelow a chart provided by the appellants-petitioners in the writ petition. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_39_LAWS(GAU)7_2002.html</FRM>