NIBARAN MALAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 5. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 as well as Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.

(2.) The facts in both the writ petitions being similar and the question of law involved are paramateria, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

(3.) The issue involved in the writ petition filed at a later point of time pertains to as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the revision of pay in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as other benefits as claimed in the writ petitions. It further transpires from a perusal of the writ petition registered as WP(C) No.807/2013 that it is the case of the petitioners that in terms with the Wage Board's recommendation, the age of the superannuation was 60 years and also as per the Government of Assam's Office Memorandum dtd. 25/1/2005, the age of retirement of Grade-IV employees was 60 years whereas the retirement age all other employees was enhanced from 58 to 59 years. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners herein that while settling the VRS entitlement of the petitioners, they have been deprived on the basis of not calculating their entitlement in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as not calculating their age of retirement as 59 years or 60 years as the case may be for Grade-III and Grade-IV employees respectively.