Service Termination is Ineffective Without Proof of Actual Service of Order Upon the Employee

The husbands of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Late Pradip Dutta and Late Ghana Saikia) were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1989 and served until their deaths in May and June 2015, respectively

While they received salaries until July 2007, payments were thereafter stopped. The widows filed WP(C).No.3635/2017 seeking arrear salaries and pensionary benefits

The State contested this, claiming the teachers were appointed against non-existent posts and their services were terminated via a general order dated 12.05.1992

However, this Court, vide order dated 06.02.2024, allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioners entitled to salaries and family pension because the State failed to prove that termination orders were ever served upon the employees during their lifetimes

The State subsequently filed this Review Petition, asserting that a 2013 judgment in a related case (WP(C).No.622/2009) proved the husbands had knowledge of the 1992 termination

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06.02.2024 that warrants a review

2. Whether the implied knowledge of a termination order, without proof of service, is sufficient to deny salary and pensionary benefits to employees who continued to render service

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the power of review under the Code of Civil Procedure, which necessitates the demonstration of an "error apparent on the face of the record" rather than a mere disagreement with a plausible view

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dulu Devi v. State of Assam & Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 622, which establishes that if a termination order is not served and the employee continues to work, they are entitled to service benefits

The Court examined the State’s contention that the 2013 order in WP(C).No.622/2009 imputed knowledge of termination to the deceased employees. However, the Court observed that even in that previous proceeding, the employees had categorically maintained that termination orders were never served

In the underlying writ petition [WP(C).No.3635/2017], the State failed to rebut the assertion that the husbands continued to discharge their duties until death and were paid salaries for 15 years (1992–2007) following the alleged termination

The Court reasoned that a review is not a "re-hearing" in disguise; since the State could still not produce evidence of actual service of the termination orders during the service tenure, the original conclusion remained a "plausible view"

The findings in the order dated 06.02.2024—that the employees were deemed to be in service due to non-service of termination orders—were upheld as legally sound based on the Dulu Devi precedent. The Review Petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made