TAPAN KUMAR SARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. the Chairman, State Resource Centre, Assam and the Director, State Resources Centre, Assam. Also heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department for the State i.e. respondent No.5. None appears on call for the Union of India i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 or for respondent No. 6 i.e. Principal, North Guwahati College.

(2.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has projected that pursuant to an advertisement published in 08.06.2007 edition of the Assam Tribune, wherein the respondent No.4 has solicited applications for appointment to the post of Deputy Director, the petitioner had applied for appointment and he was selected for appointment to the post of Deputy Director, State Resource Centre, Assam under National Literacy Mission Authority (referred hereinafter as SRC for short). As per the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement published on 08.06.2007, it was stated that the appointment would be for one year contract basis, subject to extension on mutual agreement, fixing remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was also stated that the SRC, Assam may consider protection of pay to deserving candidates. Thereafter, on joining in said post on 01.03.2008, the service of petitioner was extended from time to time till 28.02.2011. During the said period, the lien in respect of the petitioner in the Department of Physics, North Guwahati College, Guwahati was also extended from time to time till 28.02.2011. It is further projected that the petitioner was being paid salary according to the scale of pay which he would otherwise be getting as a Lecturer in Physics in North Guwahati College, Guwahati with other entitled emoluments. However, after leaving service of the State Resource Centre, Assam, the petitioner became aware that the UGC, in the meantime had granted one pay revision in the month of August, 2010 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner claims to be entitled to the differential salary taking into account the one pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Based on the enclosures to Annexure- J-1 (Series), it is claimed that the petitioner was entitled to the differential pay amount of Rs.10,25,614/-, out of which the respondent No. 4 had sanctioned only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as ex-gratia in lieu of arrear salary vide letter No. SRC/5/96/462 dated 26.02.2014.

(3.) In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the advertisement published on 08.06.2007, the SRC, Assam had volunteered to consider protection of pay to the deserving candidates. By referring to the documents produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 pursuant to order dated 26.11.2018, by which the pay and other emoluments released to the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2011 as disclosed, it is submitted that the petitioner was being granted basic pay (unrevised) without considering the effect of one pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which was notified in the month of August, 2010. Accordingly, it is submitted that although pay protection was granted to the petitioner yet, he was not provided with the revised pay, which he would have otherwise got as a Lecturer in Physics in North Guwahati College. Hence, it is submitted that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the revised pay structure to the petitioner on account of his "under lien" post of Lecturer in North Guwahati College and thereafter, as Associate Professor of Department of Physics of the same college.