Nomal Chandra Buragohain @ Nomal ... vs The State Of Assam And 10 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3250 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010188242021




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/6330/2021

         NOMAL CHANDRA BURAGOHAIN @ NOMAL GOHAIN
         S/O LT. GHANA KANTA BURAGOHAIN, R/O VILL. KAKOJAN GOHAIN
         GAON, P.O. DHITAIPUKHURI, P.S. SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC
         WORKS DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6, KAMUP (M) ASSAM

         2:THE SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (B) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

         3:THE SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-6

         4:THE UNDER SECRETARY
         TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (AUDIT BRANCH) DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
         KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

         5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD (R) ASSAM CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-3

         6:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD (R) ASSAM CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-3

         7:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
          PWD (R) JORHAT CIRCLE JORHAT
         ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/5


            8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             PWRD
             SIVASAGAR RURAL ROAD DIVISION SIVASAGAR
            ASSAM

            9:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
             MOIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA ASSAM

            10:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER
             OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM
            MOIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA DIST. KAMRUP
            ASSAM

            11:THE TREASURY OFFICER
             SIVASAGAR
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J I BORBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD




                             BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                         ORDER

01.12.2021

Heard Mr. L Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the office of the respondent No.8 on 01.11.1992 and his service was regularized vide Office Order No.1/531 dated 24.12.2005 in terms of the Government Notification dated 30.09.2005.

2. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2017 after serving for 25 years. Though the petitioner submitted necessary papers for pension, the same Page No.# 3/5

has not been processed on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service, after deducting the initial six years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is a covered case in terms of Sanjita Roy and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the entire service period of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker has to be counted to see whether the Muster Roll Worker had completed 20 years of service. He, accordingly, submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner had served as a Muster Roll Worker for 20 years without deduction of the initial six years of service.

4. Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and 11 and Mr. A Hasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.9 and 10 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the judgment and order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra).

5. On perusing the regularization order, it appears that the petitioner's name is reflected in Sl.No.51 of the list attached to the Office Order No.1/531 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sivasagar Rural Roads Division.

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties Page No.# 4/5

and keeping in view the judgment and order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent authorities are directed to determine and verify the continuous length of service of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker, without any deduction being made with regard to his initial service period as Muster Roll Worker. If such service period of the petitioner meets the bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioner.

7. Further, the respondents will also clarify as to whether the name Sri Nomal Gohain reflected in Sl.No.51 of the list attached to the Office Order No.1/531 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer PWD Sivasagar Rural Road Division is the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner's name in this case is recorded as Sri Nomal Chandra Buragohain @ Nomal Gohain. It is stated that the gratuity also has been issued in the name of Nomal Chandra Buragohain.

8. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

9. The terminal gratuity paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner, if any.

10. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE Page No.# 5/5

Comparing Assistant