Review.Pet. 81/2016. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberReview.Pet. 81/2016
Judgement DateMay 16, 2019
CourtGauhati High Court

I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

(HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Review Petition No.81/ 2016 I n

WP( C) No.5286/ 2004

The state of Assam

Represented by the commissioner & secy.

To the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Deptt., Dispur, Guwahati-6

… REVI EW PETI TI ONER/ RESPONDENT

VERSUS

  1. Mrs Usha Rani Goswami

    W/ o Devendra Sarma,

    R/ o Prafulla Bora Path Bye Lane No. 2, Rupnagar, Guwahati-22

  2. Smt Pranita Kalita

    W/ o Sri Pradip Senapati,

    R/ o Santipur Hill Side, Mathura Nagar, Bharalumukh,

    Guwahati-9

  3. Smt. Anima Handique Phukan

    W/ o Dharma Ranjan Pathak,

    R/ o House No. 38, Udaypur Birubari,

    P.O. Gopinath Nagar, Guwahati 781016

  4. Smt. Nirmali Chakraborty,

    W/ o Ashok Kumar Sarma,

    R/ o Vill. & P.O. Gotanagar,

    Gapal Than Near N.H. 37,

    Guwahati 781033

  5. Smt. Rula Baruah

    W/ o Shri Mukut Goswami, Assam Engineering College,

    Nizarapar, Guwahati 781014

  6. Smt. Kamini Das,

    W/ o Sri Pramod Choudhury,

    Assam Engineering College Campus, Guwahati-14.

    … RESPONDENTS/ WRI T PETI TI ONERS .

    For the Review petitioner : Mr. N. Sarma, … SC, Elementary Education For the respondents : Mr. I Choudhury. … Sr. Advocate

    Mr. R M Deka,

    Mr. S Biswakarma,

    Mr. A Phukan,

    Mr. A K Baruah,

    Ms. T Jinni,

    Ms. G Das. … Advocates.

    Page 1 of 10

    Review Petition No.81/2016

    Date of hearing & judgment : 16.05.2017

    BEFORE

    THE HON’BLE MR JUSTI CE HRI SHI KESH ROY

    JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)

    The Review petitioners are represented by Mr. N Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Elementary Education. The respondents/ writ petitioners are represented by Mr. I Choudhury, the learned Sr. Advocate.

  7. The State has filed this Review petition on account of the liberty granted to them by the Division Bench on 10.5.2016 in the WA No.46/ 2013, where the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 10.3.2011 in the WP(C) No.5286/ 2004, was challenged by the department. Under this judgment, the Writ Court declared that the petitioners are entitled to their arrear salary from their respective date(s) of appointment, as ME School Teachers.

  8. However for another group of ME School teachers, the learned Judge in the WP(C) No.5705/ 2010 (Abdul Haque Abbasi and 15 others vs. State of Assam and others) on 3.11.2010 rejected the claim for arrear salary. Thus observing the contradictory decision of the Writ Court on the issue of entitlement to arrear salary for the ME School teachers, the Division Bench after noticing that the earlier judgment in Abdul Haque Abbasi (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court, disposed of the WA No.46/ 2013 with liberty to the Departmental appellants to file Review petition to apprise the Writ Court about rejection of the arrear pay claim in Abdul Haque Abbasi (supra), as the said decision stood confirmed by the Division Bench on 25.2.2015 through dismissal of the WA No.326/ 2011, filed by the aggrieved writ petitioner Abdul Haque Abbasi and 15 others

    .

    Page 2 of 10

    Review Petition No.81/2016

    REVI EW PETI TI ONERS ARGUMENTS

    4.1 Standing for the Review petitioners, Mr. N Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel submits that because of the contradictory decision of the Coordinate Bench for similarly situated ME school teachers, this Review petition is preferred by the department. He contends that since claim for arrear salary was denied by the Court in the earlier decision in Abdul Haque Abbasi (supra), the said verdict having been approved by the Division Bench through dismissal of the WA No.326/ 2011, this Court should retract its positive direction given on 10.3.2011, in favour of the ME school teachers, in the WP(C) No.5286/ 2004.

    4.2 The Review petitioners next contend that the service of the ME school teachers were regularized under exceptional circumstances through the Cabinet decision taken on 21.2.2000 and since an undertaking was secured from the regularised teachers in their adjustment orders of 20.12.2002, to not to claim arrear salary , the direction for disbursal of the arrear salary should be reviewed by the Court.

    4.3 I n support of the Review petition the departmental lawyer argues that the ME school teachers in both writ petitions were in the same category as they were regularized in pursuant to Cabinet decisions and hence there should be consistent adjudication on their arrear salary claim as otherwise, discrimination will result on account of the contradictory verdict of the Court.

    ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS

    5.1 Opposing the Review petition, Mr. I Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT