LEKHA PRIYA SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. H. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

(2.) The question involved in the instant writ petitions is as to whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the authority concerned under FR 56(b) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules as applicable to the State of Assam insofar as compulsorily retiring the petitioner is in public interest. For ascertaining the said dispute, it would be relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of both the writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the year 1985 in the post of Junior Assistant under the Government of Assam in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Maibang in the District of Dima Hasao. Thereupon, the petitioner was promoted to the Post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. the date of joining i.e. on 14/7/2004. From a perusal of the writ petitions, it further transpires that on 13/12/2019, a communication was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao i.e. the respondent No.2 herein wherein it was mentioned that in terms with the order dtd. 29/11/2019 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner was asked to go for voluntary retirement due to constant negligence of Government duties and irregularity in attending office. It was further mentioned that as per the norms, the petitioner would be released after 3 (three) months w.e.f. 1/12/2019. It further appears that the petitioner on 21/12/2019 submitted an application intimating the respondent No.2 that she has not been able to attend her duties regularly as she was in her sick bed suffering from Chronic Liver Disease and Nephropathy and was admitted in the Haflong Civil Hospital on 24/11/2019 and got discharged on 3/12/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was again admitted for two days i.e. 13/12/2019 and 14/12/2019 for blood transfusion. It was also mentioned in the said application that the doctor of the petitioner adviced her for bed rest and proper medical attention. It further appears that on 26/12/2019, the respondent No.2 granted 30 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 1/11/2019 to 30/11/2019. It was further mentioned in the said order that the petitioner is likely to return to the post from which she proceeded on leave after its expiry and she would have continued to hold the post but for her proceeding on leave.