ANIL KUMAR BHARALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.J. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. B. Bhuiyan, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. None has appeared on behalf of the Finance Department, Government of Assam; Accountant General, Assam and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Even otherwise also in absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents, their stand is not discernible. The State Government in the PWD has also not filed any counter affidavit.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-7 and 13 communications dated 31.5.2002 and 7.4.2003. For a ready reference, the said two communications are reproduced below: Annexure-7

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the pay of the petitioner in the revised scale of Rs. 620-1315/- pursuant to the aforesaid ROP Rules, 1983 was fixed at Rs. 805/- and the petitioner continued to draw his salary on the basis of such fixation. The trouble for the petitioner started when the Finance Department, Government of Assam addressed Annexure-3 letter dated 7.2.1995 seeking clarification in respect of fixation of pay of the petitioner at the stage of Rs. 805/- with effect from 1.5.1984. After some correspondences, the office of the Accountant General Assam vide its above quoted impugned Annexure-7 communication dated 31.5.2002 addressed to the Additional Chief Engineer, Planning, PWD suggested that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at the stage of Rs. 805/- on 1.5.1984 with DNI 1.5.1985 in the scale of pay of Rs. 620-1315/- instead of Rs. 670/- under Rule 12(2) of the aforesaid ROP Rules. Accordingly a request was made by the said letter to re-fix the pay of the petitioner at the stage of Rs. 670/- with further request to recover the over payment made due to wrong fixation of pay.