BAWNGLEIA Vs. UNION TERRITORY, MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner in this case is that he is a citizen of India and was born and brought up in the Mizo District of the erstwhile State of Assam. He joined service under the Government of Assam some time in 1936. On 28-5-57 he was appointed as Accountant-cum-Store Keeper, Kolasib Development Block, Mizo District. On 28-2-66 there broke out in Mizo Hills an uprising and rebellion. While he was in service at Kolasib, the petitioner was arrested on 4-3-66 under the Defence of India Rules and was placed under suspension on 4-8-66 retrospectively. The petitioner was released on 16-9-66 by Governor's order dated 8-9-66. The petitioner then went to join his post but he was not allowed to do so, on the ground that by Office Order No. 28 of 1966 passed by the Block Development Officer, Kolasib, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 4-3-66 as per direction received from the Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District, under No. GD 12(c)/K/66/31 dated 4-8-66. The petitioner was reinstated in his service by an order communicated under Memo No. PDDEL 64/67/9-A dated Shillong the 12th/13th April, 1967. Thereafter the Under-Secretary to the Government of Assam by his letter No. PDB. 8/68/Part/6 dated Shillong,. the 9th August, 1968 informed the Deputy Development Commissioner/Director of Panchayat, Assam, Shillong to the effect that consequent on reinstatement of Shri Bawngleia to the post of Accountant-cum-Store Keeper of Kolasib Development Block in the Mizo District, the Governor of Assam was pleased to order that the period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e. from 4-3-66 to 23-4-67 be treated as 'dies non'. It was further stated in that letter that the Governor of Assam was pleased to sanction the grant of an allowance equivalent to half pay and in addition dearness allowance as admissible for the entire period from 4-3-66 to 23-4-67 subject to adjustment of the subsistence allowance, if any, already drawn, and that the period would not constitute any break in service but it would not count for increments, pension or leave. In pursuance of this order, Office Order No. 23 of 1968 was passed by the Block Development Officer, Kolasib T. D. Block State-I, on 22-10-68, which is to the following effect:

(2.) The petitioner thereafter preferred en appeal on 5-11-68 against the impugned order No. PDB. 8/68/Part/6 dated Shillong the 9th August, 1968 and the Office order No. 23 of 1968 dated 22-10-68 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. But the result of the appeal was not communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter by letter No. AGE 33/71/14 dated Aijal the 18th June, 1971 the Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District, addressed to the Deputy Director of Hills, Director of Development (P & CD), Assam, Shillong, strongly recommended that the period of absence of the petitioner should be treated as on duty and he should be allowed full pay and allowances for the period from 4-3-66 to 23-4-67. The following order was thereafter passed on 5/6-11-71 by the Government of Assam under the signature of the Under-Secretary to the Government of Assam:

(3.) The present petition has been filed against this order dated 5/6-11-71.