BISHNU BAISHYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while posted as Assistant Director, Central Veterinary Store was compulsorily retired from service with three months' gross salary by the notification dated 6.7.1994 (Annexure-A) under F.R. 56(b). The petitioner preferred a representation on 29.5.98 (Annexure-B) before the Commissioner and Secretary in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. On consideration of his representation, the State of Assam by notification dated 6.7.98 (Annexure-C) reinstated the petitioner in service on condition that the petitioner will be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he was out of service. On reinstatement, the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Director on 6.7.98. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 19.8.98 (Annexure-E) before the Governor of Assam for back wages. The State Government on consideration of his representation decided to treat the [period between 6.7.94 to 6.7.98 as a period spent on duty for all purposes except for payment of salary. This decision was communicated to the petitioner vide notification dated 8.10.98 (Annexure-F). Thereafter, by the notification dated 2.1.99 (Annexure-G), the State Government further decided to release the back wages for the aforesaid period. By this time, other officers junior to the petitioner were promoted to the next higher posts of Deputy Director. A Special Selection Committee was also constituted for consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion and the said Committee in its meeting dated 15.2.99 recommended the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from the date of joining of the junior officers. This decision was communicated to the State Government on 4.3.99. It is averred that despite the above developments, the petitioner has not been paid his back wages, no order of regularisation of services for the period of compulsory retirement has been passed and that he has not been promoted. The petitioner submitted a representation on 5.5.99 with two subsequent reminders on 25.5.99 and 18.6.99. But the respondent authority did not dispose of the said representations. It is specifically averred that Shri Harish Sonowal, the then Commissioner and Secretary in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department was instrumental in stalling the benefits decided to be given by the State Government. There are other allegations made against Shri Harish Sonowal regarding manipulation of records. As nothing favourable was expected to come, the petitioner filed this writ petition for redress of his grievances as indicated above.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent State issued a notification dated 10th September. 1999 cancelling the reinstatement order dated 6th July, 1998 on the ground that it was passed erroneously under mistaken conception. By the order dated 14.7.99 this Court directed the respondents not to take any action for cancellation of the order dated 6.7.98. Apparently this has been ignored. Shri Harish Sonowal, respondent No. 4, sworn in two separate affidavits on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and on his own behalf pleading that the petitioner was retired compulsorily in public interest under the provision of FR 56(b) and, as such, the order of reinstatement was erroneous. It is further stated that other similarly situated persons were also reinstated under mistaken conception. Regarding claim of back wages, it has been pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to any payment as he did not render any service during that period. With regard to the recommendations of the Special Committee for promotion, it is simply averred that the minutes of the Committee is a secret document and, as such, the petitioner had no access to it. There is, however, no denial to the assertion that the petitioner was recommended by the Special Committee for promotion to the next higher grade. In para-9 of the affidavit (dated 7th September, 1998), it has been pleaded that the petitioner was sent on compulsory retirement not for his complicity with LOG scam, but in public interest. Denying the allegations made against the Commissioner (Respondent No. 4), it has been averred that the Commissioner corrected the mistake committed earlier who reinstating the petitioner.

(3.) From the pleadings above, the question that arises for consideration is whether an order of compulsory retirement could be reviewed by the State Government on consideration of a representation filed by the concerned officer.