WP(C) 4046/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora , learned standing counsel representing the Gauhati Municipal Corpn.(GMC). 2. The petitioner who is a Tax Collector for the GMC is before this Court w ith several prayers. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confine d the prayers to granting of yearly increment in salary which has been frozen w. e.f. 14.7.92 when the petitioner was placed under suspension and also further pr ayer for consideration of entitlement of the petitioner to the revised pay scale at par with scale granted to the other employees of the Corpn. 3. By order dated 14.7.92, pending drawal of departmental proceeding, the p etitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 12.4.95but the departmental proceeding continues to linger on and even after 16 years the departmental proceeding is yet to come to conclude. 4. The GMC authorities have given some explanations in their counter affida vit for the delay in disposing off the departmental proceeding but as the petiti oner is not making any issue out of the said delay this Court is refraining from examining that aspect of the matter in the present proceeding. 5. However neither in the counter affidavit filed nor in the submissions ma de on behalf of the GMC authorities, any explanation is furnished as to why the petitioner has been denied the benefit of pay increment and also the revised pay benefits. 6. Under such circumstances, this Court is left with no choice but to presu me that the said benefits have been denied to the petitioner only because of the non-conclusion of the departmental proceeding pending against him since the yea r 1992. 7. When the petitioner is obviously not responsible for prolongation of the departmental proceeding, the authorities cannot deny the benefit of yearly incr ement and pay revision of the petitioner if he is otherwise entitled to such ben efits, only because of pendency of the departmental proceeding against him. As t he suspension order has been revoked and the petitioner is reinstated in service on 12.4.95 there can be no reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of yearly pay increment and also benefit of revised pay scale only on the ground of penden cy of the departmental proceeding. 8. Mr. Bora, learned standing counsel for the GMC under the circumstances a ssures that the GMC authorities would consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the salary increment and also the revised pay scale and if the same is due t o the petitioner, it would be paid to him notwithstanding the pendency of the de partmental proceeding. 9. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the res pondent authorities to consider the aforesaid grievances of the petitioner and t o take an appropriate decision in the matter. This process should be concluded w ithin a period of 60 days from today. After such consideration, the GMC authorit ies would grant benefits to the petitioner including the arrear benefits in term s of the prayer made.