DULAL KRISHNA BHATTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a speaking order, dtd. 10/4/2023, issued by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, on the ground that the same is in clear violation of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dtd. 5/3/2020, in WP (c) 3450/2018.

(3.) As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, while working as a Supervisory Assistant in Pandu College (a provin-cialized College), had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/1/2006. The age of superannuation being 59 years at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30/6/2005. However, he was continued in his service and had proceeded on superannuation only w.e.f. 31/1/2006. Accordingly, the petitioner had overstayed in his service beyond the age of superannuation. The respondent authorities had, thereafter, fixed the dateof his superannuation as 30/6/2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4067/2008. This Court upon considering the issues arising in the matter, was pleased, vide order, dtd. 21/2/2011, to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to authorize to the petitioner his pension and DCRG benefits by treating the date of his retirement as 30/6/2005 instead of 30/6/2004. The petitioner, accordingly, in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dtd. 21/2/2011, approached the respondent authorities, praying for grant of release of his pension and DCRG benefits. The respondent authorities, thereafter, issued to the petitioner, a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO), therein, authorizing to him, his pension and DCRG benefits w.e.f. 1/12/2005. The other pensionary benefits including the leave encashment benefits was, however, released to the petitioner only on 22/6/2015.