GOPAL CHETRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T.J Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, assisted by Mr. P.P Dutta and Mr. L.N Dihingia, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Forest Department.

(2.) BY Notification dated 09.06.1999 the petitioner Dr. Gopal Chetri was appointed as Wildlife Research Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 4390/ -(four thousand three hundred ninety) and posted at Manas National Park, Barpeta Road. The petitioner had occasion to institute WP(C) No. 1066/2012 claiming a higher pay scale equivalent to that of a Research Officer serving at Kaziranga National Park. The case of the petitioner is that although he is posted at Manas National Park as Wildlife Research Officer, he has been discharging duties and functions of a Research Officer. In fact, the Forest Department itself has recognized that there are only 2(two) Research Officers including the petitioner herein -1(one) serving at Kaziranga National Park and the other at Manas National Park. In the earlier round of litigation this Court had noticed that the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 had recommended that Research Officers posted in Wildlife Sanctuaries be placed in the Grade pay of Rs. 5900/ -(five thousand nine hundred). The representation filed by the petitioner claiming equivalent pay scale as that of a Research Officer was also noticed. A direction was made to the Forest Department to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 12.4.2010, having regard to the recommendation made by the Assam Pay Commission and as suggested by the Pay Anomaly Committee within 2(two) months after affording personal hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) PURSUANT thereto, an order was passed on 3.7.2013 under the hand of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department, declining the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was held not to be entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5900/ - (five thousand nine hundred) on grounds that he has been appointed as a Wildlife Research Officer and not as Research Officer. Imputations has also been made that all along the petitioner has been mis -leading the Department by claiming to be a Research Officer. This order dated 3.7.2013 is assailed in the present petition.