RUDRA PRASAD DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Social Welfare Department. I have also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam.

(2.) The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was put under suspension vide an order dtd. 11/8/2009 by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department in exercise of the powers under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner thereupon was paid his subsistence allowance. However, vide an order dtd. 2/11/2011, the respondent authorities i.e. the Social Welfare Department after a period of more than 2 (two) years had re-instated the petitioner and posted the petitioner as CDPO, Ujani Majuli ICDS proect, Jorhat.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that although the petitioner was re-instated vide the order dtd. 2/11/2011, there was no indication as to how the period of suspension was to be treated. Subsequent thereto, vide an order dtd. 29/11/2013, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Superintendent of VTRC Kachukata, Baksa and the petitioner claims to be serving in the same capacity till date. It is the case of the petitioner that even after a period of 9 years have elapsed from the date of the suspension, the suspension period from 11/8/2009 to 20/11/2011 was not regularized by granting full pay and allowance to the petitioner thereby treating the period of suspension as on duty. A reference was made to a communication issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam dtd. 30/7/2015 which was marked to the petitioner wherein clarification was sought for as to how to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner. As the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to do the needful for treating the period of suspension as on duty, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent authorities to pass necessary orders for releasing the full pay and allowances admissible to the petitioner during the period of suspension and also for treating the said period as period spent on duty for all purposes. Further to that, the petitioner has also sought for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the yearly increments due to the petitioner from the year 2009 till date.