Gauhati High Court
Rajab Ali @ Rajib Ali vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 23 August, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010274272019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8298/2019
RAJAB ALI @ RAJIB ALI
S/O- LATE RAIJUDDIN, R/O- VILL 4 NO. BHERGAON, P.O- SITOLI, DIST-
BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781308
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION
ASSAM
R G BARUAH ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI- 29
5:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
BARPETA SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
BARPETA TREASURY
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 23-08-2021
Heard Ms. P Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B Gogoi,
learned Standing Counsel, Soil Conservation Department as well as Finance Department for
the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5. Shri D Borah, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2.
The learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue in hand has been
answered by this Court in a similar batch of writ petitions vide an order dated 04.12.2018, the
lead case being WP(C)/1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and Ors.). Reference to an
order dated 26.02.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA/18/2021 has also
been made.
Without going to an elaborate discussion on the facts, it would be suffice to mention
that the petitioner, who was working as a Muster Roll Worker in the office of the Divisional
Officer, Barpeta Soil Conservation Division, was regularized as Chowkidar in the year 2005
and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. However, his
grievance was that apart from the terminal gratuity, no other retirement benefit has been
paid to him.
Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this
Court a judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in WP(C)/1089/2015 concerning the
identical issue of a number of petitioners whereby, it has been held that the continuous
Page No.# 3/3
length of service of the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers are to be determined and if such
service meets the bench mark of 20 years without any deduction, the benefit of post
retirement should be made available. It has further been directed that while carrying out the
said exercise, the respondent authorities would also take recourse to Rule 67 of the Pension
Rules for those incumbents who fail to meet the bench mark of 20 years by 12 months or
less.
This Court is also informed that a connected issue had arisen regarding the effective
date for giving benefit of the judgment.
A Division Bench of this Court in WA/18/2021, vide an order dated 26.02.2021 has
clarified that the benefit would accrue from the date of retirement and not from the date of
the judgment. Further, the aforesaid position of law, as laid down by this Court, has attained
finality as no appeal has been preferred.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of in the same lines by directing the authorities to give the benefit in terms of the
judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in WP(C)/1089/2015 and as clarified by the
Hon'ble Division Bench from the date of the retirement of the petitioner.
Needless to say that the benefits already granted are to be adjusted from the
entitlements of the petitioner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
