GIRINDRA NATH NEOG Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Roy, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE controversy raised, in the present writ petition, lies in a narrow compass. The writ petitioner retired, on 31. 07. 02, as Chief Engineer of the Assam State Electricity Board (in short, 'aseb' ). In terms of the Office Memorandum, dated 05. 09. 2001, published in the Assam Gazette (Extra-Ordinary), on 26. 12. 2001, the Government of Assam enhanced the maximum limit of its employees' Death-Cum-Retirement-Gratuity, (in short, 'the DCRG'), from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 3. 5 lakhs. In terms of an Office Memorandum, dated 28. 04. 99, issued by the ASEB, the ASEB had decided to be guided, in matters of DCRG, by the DCRG Rules of the State Government, the maximum limit of DCRG in respect of even the employees of ASEB stands, according to the petitioner, automatically enhanced to Rs. 3. 5 lakhs with the publication of the Government's Office Memorandum, dated 05. 09. 2001, aforementioned. Complaining that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 05. 09. 2001, aforementioned, though he is, as an ASEB employee, entitled to receive, on his retirement, the maximum limits of Rs. 3. 5 lakhs as his gratuity, the petitioner has approached this Court, with the help of the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release in his favour Rs. 3. 5 lakhs as gratuity in terms of the Office Memorandum, dated 28. 04. 1999, aforementioned.

(3.) FOR the purpose of resolving the controversy, which this writ petition raises for determination, it is necessary to take note of the exact contents of the relevant office memorandum, dated 28. 04. 99, issued by the ASEB with regard to its policy on the subject of DCRG. This office memorandum, dated 28. 04. 99, on which rests the entire case of the petitioner, reads as follows :