Jawaharlal Rai And 6 Ors vs State Of Assam And Anr

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department and Mr. S.P

Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department.

The petitioners herein are/were serving as Deputy Inspector of Schools in the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam. It

is the contention of the petitioners that from 1983 onwards, the petitioners were paid a salary, which was same as that of District Transport Officer,

APS Officers, Superintendent of Taxes, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Assistant Instructor in NE Forest College, Labour Officers etc. But the

Assam Pay Commission constituted in the year 2008 had brought the Deputy Inspector of Schools to a pay scale, which was lower than that of the

aforesaid posts. Being aggrieved, the petitioners apart from making various representations had also preferred a writ petition before this Court being

WP(C) No.2818/2011. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the order dated 31.07.2014 requiring the respondent No.3 to give a

consideration to the grievance raised by the petitioners for a scale of pay equivalent to that of the aforementioned posts.

In compliance of the said direction of this Court, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 20.08.2014 before the Commissioner and

Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department. In consideration thereof, the order dated 18.11.2014 was passed by

the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department. After taking note of the attending facts, on which the claim of

the petitioners was made, the Secretary of the Department arrived at a conclusion which is as follows:-

“Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, the Government has decided that the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of the

Pay Band from PB-3 to PB-4 with Grade Pay Rs.5100/- to Rs.5400/- even by review/amendment of the Service Rules etc cannot be entertained.â€​

On a plain reading of the aforesaid conclusion of the Secretary, it appears that no independent consideration was made by the Secretary to arrive at

a conclusion as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a scale of pay equivalent to the aforementioned posts or the lower scale of pay paid to them

by the Pay Commission of 2008 is justified in the circumstance. All that the Secretary does is that an observation is made that as the Pay Commission

of 2008 nor the Pay Anomaly Committee had not given any recommendation, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to a higher scale of pay. The

said conclusion of the Secretary would naturally lead to a question as to whether the Assam Pay Commission 2008 or the Pay Anomaly Committee

had at all given a consideration to the claim of the higher scale of pay of the petitioners and rejected the same or the said claim was never given a

consideration nor placed before the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 or the Pay Anomaly Committee thereof. If the consideration was given by the

Assam Pay Commission, 2008 and the Pay Anomaly Committee and thereupon rejected with reasons, the grievance raised by the petitioners obviously

can be construed to have been taken care of and from that point of view, the conclusion of the Secretary that as the said two authorities had not given

any recommendation, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to a higher scale of pay will be acceptable. But on the other hand, if the Assam Pay

Commission, 2008 or the Pay Anomaly Committee or any other appropriate authority has not yet given a consideration to the claim of the petitioners

for a higher scale of pay, the same in the view of this Court would amount to a deprivation of the legal right of the petitioners to have a consideration

of their claim being addressed by an appropriate authority and further the same would also not amount to a full compliance of the requirement of the

order dated 31.07.2014 in WP(C) No.2818/2011.

The materials produced on record do not indicate in any manner as to whether the consideration as indicated above was given or it was not given.

In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate that the appropriate authority in the Finance Department of the Government of Assam give a due

consideration to the claim of the petitioners claiming for a higher scale of pay than what is provided to them presently. The claim of the petitioners be

also looked from the point of view that prior to Assam Pay Commission 2008, they were being paid a scale of pay, which was same as that of District

Transport Officer, APS Officers, Superintendent of Taxes, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Assistant Instructor in NE Forest College, Labour

Officers etc.

In this respect, the stand of the Department in paragraph-14 of their affidavit is relevant. The said paragraph is as follows:-

“It is stated there that in the ROP of 1998 the Class II post has been mentioned as ‘all Gazetted post on the revised time scale the maximum of

which is Rs.9075 and above but below Rs.11425’ as the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools even in ROP 1998 was carrying the maximum scale

of Rs.11025 these posts were always in Class II Service as per ROP 1998. It may be mentioned here that though the Service may belong to Assam

Education Service Class 1 Category but as per ROP of 1998 this post was always under Class II category. Thus ROP 2010 has not agreed any new

classification or downgraded this post erroneously claimed by the petitioner. “

It is also the stand of the petitioners that in the ROP Rules of 2017, the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools was considered under the Heading of

Assam School Service (Junior Teaching and Inspection) whereas according to the petitioner, the post of Deputy Inspector is en-cadered as a Class II

post under the Assam Education Service Rules, 1982. It was only in the distant past that the Deputy Inspector was included under the Assam School

Service Rules and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire approach of the authorities was incorrect.

Notice is also taken of the averment made in para-15 of the Finance Department that the proposal submitted by the Education Department in

respect of the claim of the petitioners for a higher scale of pay was not clear and no specific point was mentioned on which the views of the Finance

Department could have been given.

Considering the matter in its entirety, the appropriate authority in the Finance Department shall take into consideration of the aforementioned

aspects while arriving at its decision and in order to enable the Finance Department to bring the process to its logical end, the Education Department

shall also submit the appropriate proposal before the Finance Department for doing the needful. The Education Department shall do their requirement

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and thereupon the Finance Department shall take their decision

within a period of three months thereafter.

It is needless to say that the order dated 18.11.2014 does not in any manner arrive at any conclusion as regards the entitlement of the petitioner

and therefore, the said order shall not have its affect in any manner for the Finance Department to take their decision. In terms of the above, the writ

petition stands disposed of.