CHAIRMAN STATE RESOURCE CENTRE Vs. TAPAN KUMAR SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned ASGI, appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3, and also Mr. S. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department of the State of Assam, the respondents No.4 herein. No one has appeared to represent the respondent No.5.

(2.) This application has been filed by the three petitioners for review of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2883/2014. Be it mentioned herein that the respondent No.1 herein was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2883/2014. Out of the three petitioners herein, the petitioners No.1 and 2 were arrayed as respondents No.3 and 4 of the said writ petition. However, the petitioner No.3 was not arrayed as one of the respondents in the said writ petition. The respondents No.2 to 5 of this application were arrayed as respondents No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 respectively in the said writ petition.

(3.) In brief, the case projected in the writ petition was that with lien approval from the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the respondent No.1 herein had joined the State Resource Centre Assam as its Deputy Director. It was projected therein that the respondent No.1 was granted full pay protection similar to his original post of Associate Professor, Department of Physics in the North Guwahati College. It had been projected that instead of releasing arrear salary , the petitioner No.2 herein had sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) as ex gratia in place of arrear salary. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 had filed the writ petition for a direction, inter-alia, to the State Resource Centre, Assam to release the arrear salary in place of ex gratia. While the petitioner No.1 and 2 had filed their affidavit- in- opposition, the respondent No.1 had filed his affidavit- in- reply and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 had filed an additional affidavit- in- opposition, against which the respondent No.1 had filed his rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners No.1 and 2 herein and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 herein, this Court had allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 which is sought to be reviewed herein.