Judgment · High Court · 2012

The respondents are contesting the writ petition and have filed their af fidavit-in-opposition. However, a perusal of paras 8, 10 and 22 of the affidavi t-in-opposition reveals that the revised pay scales have not been extended to th e members of the petitioner association on the ground that the Sub-Committee, wh ich had earlier taken the decision to implement the revised pay scales have no a uthority to pass such a resolution. The stance taken by the respondent authorit ies is best described by reproducing the entire paragraphs of 8 and 10 of the af fidavit-in-opposition : (cid:28) 8. That, there was no proposal for revision of scale of pay of initial post i. e. (cid:28)Housing Officer (cid:29) and for the highest post i.e. (cid:28)Chief Housing Officer (cid:29) in th eir Executive Officer cadre in the original demand submitted to the (cid:28)Board (cid:29). Th e above mentioned demands were placed before the Board of Directors meeting held on 12.09.1995 under agenda Item No.11. The Board of Directors after threadbare discussion, referred the demand to the Sub-Committee for examination and report . 10. That, the Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.1995 discussed the agen da as mentioned above and approved the proposal of up gradation of Status, re-de signation and revision of scale of pay etc. with effect from 01.10.1995 authoris ing the Chairman and Commissioner of the (cid:28)Board (cid:29) to take appropriate steps for finalising the matter. The Sub-Committee also decided to get the approval of th e Board of Directors (cid:28)through circulation (cid:29). But what was done by the Sub-Commit tee on the aforesaid matter was however beyond the power as provided by Section 16(2) of the Act. As per Section 16(2) of the Act, the power and function of th e Sub-committee appointed by the Board of Directors is to carry out any instruct ion given to it by the Board of Directors. As per Rule 6(e) of the Assam State Housing Board Rules, 1976 (herein after referred as the Rules) every decision of such committee shall, subject to any rules and regulations to the contrary, be laid before the Board of Directors for acceptance. The Board of Directors refer red the proposal of the petitioner to the Sub-committee for examination and repo rt on the proposal. But the Sub-Committee going beyond the (cid:28)brief (cid:29) as admissibl e under the Act and the Rules not only extended and enhanced the proposal referr ed to it by Board of Directors but also decided to get the approval of the Board of Directors through circulation which/is not within the role. In fact the the n Chairman of the Board of Directors instead placing the matter of up gradation of post and revision of scale of pay of Housing Officers cadre before the Board of Directors for necessary approval as provided by the Act and the Rules, obtain ed signature from some of the members of Board of Directors on the body of the m inutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 25.09.1995 by way of circulat ion as per instruction issued to the Chairman and Commissioner vide the aforesai d minutes. However, signatures of the authorised representatives of Finance and Personal Department of Government of Assam were not obtained on the minutes of the Sub-Committee dated 25.09.1995. Therefore the Commissioner issued the Notif ication dated 04.12.1995 stating that pay scale revision as considered by the Su b-Committee has the approval of the (cid:28)Board (cid:29). But before issuing notification da ted 04.12.1995 to revise the pay scale, up gradation of the status of the Housin g Officer cadre the prior approval of the Government of Assam was not obtained a nd has been issued as per minutes of the meeting o the Sub-Committee held on 25. 09.1995. Thus notification dated 04.12.1995 is nullity in the eye of law (cid:29). In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner associa tion fairly submits that as the implementation could not be done only due to tec hnical reason, the matter may be remanded to the Board for fresh consideration i n accordance with law. Both Mr J Chutia, the learned counsel for the petitioner association and Mr C Goswami, the learned State counsel appearing for the respon dent Board were heard at length. The learned State counsel for the respondent B oard has also no objection against the proposal of the learned counsel for the p etitioner association. Under the circumstances, this writ petition does not surv ive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent Board to take a fresh decision for extending the benefits of the revised pay sc ales to the members of the petitioner-association in accordance with law by taki ng into the account the grievances projected by them in writ petition as well as the recommendation of the Sub-Committee. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent Board without unnecessary delay and within a period of thr ee months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.