Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010231282018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7552/2018 BOKUL ACHARJEE S/O LATE JYOTISH CH. ACHARJEE, C/O ASHIT SANYAL, BAGCHIPARA, PO AND DIST DIBRUGARH, 786001, PHONE NO 9495393128 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT ASSAM (CIVIL) SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY, ASSAM, PIN- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING REHABARI GHY ASSAM PIN- 786125 3:PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE TINSUKIA PIN- 786125 4:THE SECY. CUM COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF FINANCE ASSAM (CIVIL) SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY ASSAM PIN- 78100 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUA, MRS. P BARMAN (BORKAKOTI),MS. K BORKATAKI,MRS. B CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S P DAS (R BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 30.04.2025 Heard Mrs. P. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has appeared for the Finance Department, Assam i.e. the respondent No.4. The writ petitioner herein had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 29.02.2012 from the post of Instructor, I.T.I., Tinsukia. While in service, the petitioner was aggrieved due to the promotions given to his juniors by superseding him. That apart, the arrear pay of the petitioner for the increment during the period from 01.04.1996 to 28.02.2012 amounting to Rs.5,88,167/- was also not paid to him by the department. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Today when the matter is called up, Mrs. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that her client is not pressing the 1st relief i.e. for giving retrospective effect to the date of promotion of the petitioner. However, in so Page No.# 3/4 far as the non-release of arrear pay is concerned, that being an admitted due of the petitioner, a direction be issued by this Court to release the amount in a time bound manner. In support of her above argument, Mrs. Barman has invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure- C) issued by the respondent No.3 addressed to the respondent No.2 as well as the subsequent communication dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure-4 to the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3) issued by the respondent No.2 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Department, wherein and whereby, the above claim of the writ petitioner has been accepted. Responding to the above, Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for release of arrear dues of Rs.5,88,167/- is admitted by the department. However, due to non- availability of certain documents at the relevant point of time, the claim of the petitioner could not be processed for releasing the amount. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 have also not denied and disputed the claim of the petitioner which is clearly borne out from the materials available on record. From a perusal of the communication dated 04.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 it is apparent that although the amount of Rs.5,88,167/- was found to be due and payable to the writ petitioner on account of increment for the period from 01.04.1996 to 28.02.2012, yet, the same was not released to him by the Treasury department due to non-availability of documents showing that the petitioner had crossed the Efficiency Bar. The department has, however, not denied the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the above amount. Situated Page No.# 4/4 thus, this Court is convinced that the present is a fit case for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the arrear dues to the petitioner. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, to examine the claim of the petitioner and on such verification, if the same is found to be genuine, necessary steps for releasing the amount due and payable to the petitioner be taken. The aforesaid exercise be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant