Md. Kalimuddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1347 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010064812021




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/2475/2021

         MD. KALIMUDDIN AHMED
         S/O. LT. SIRAJUDDIN, VILL. MOLLAPARA, P.O. HOWLY MOHANPARA, DIST.
         DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784529.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER
         RESOURCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

          W. R. DEPTT. CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-03.

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-29.

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.
          MANGALDAI (E AND D) DIVISION
          MANGALDAI
                                                                                      Page No.# 2/3

             DIST. DARRANG
             ASSAM
             PIN-784125.

            6:THE TREASURY OFFICER

             MANGALDAI TREASURY
             DIST. DARRANG
             ASSAM
             PIN-784125

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                            ORDER

Date : 07.04.2021

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, Ms. S. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 6.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by non-granting of pension.

It is projected in this writ petition that the petitioner was serving as Muster Roll worker under respondent no. 5, having been appointed on 01.08.1989 and his post was regularized as Grade-IV w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.01.2011 and his pension proposal was forwarded by respondent no. 5 to the office of respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 4 vide letter no. Pen-7/D/K-85150/WRD/2012-13 dated 13.02.2013 had granted terminal gratuity to the petitioner and rejected the pensionary and other benefits on the ground that after deducting initial 6 years of service of Muster Roll service period, he did not have the net qualifying service of 20 years.

Page No.# 3/3

This Court by virtue of judgment and order passed in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (2019) 4 GLR 97, had already held the deduction of 6 years of service as Muster Roll is impermissible. Therefore, without deduction of 6 years, the petitioner would have rendered more than 21 years of service, as such, he would be entitled to pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, in terms of ratio laid down in case of Sanjita Roy (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to work out the pensionery benefits in favour of the petitioner and release the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is also clarified that if any terminal benefit has been paid to the petitioner, such payment may be adjusted at the time of finalization of the pension.

This writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant