Gauhati High Court
Suleman Hassa vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 3 December, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010122852020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4026/2020
SULEMAN HASSA
S/O- LT. JOHAN HASSA, R/O- VILL- DENGAON CHRISTIAN GAON, P.O.
DUARBAMUNI B.O., P.S. DOKMOKA, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM,
PIN- 782441
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SPL. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY.
KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
DIPHU
PIN- 782460
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD (ROADS)
DOKMOKA DIVISION
DOKMOKA
PIN-
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
03.12.2021
Heard Ms. BR Brahma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R Dhar, learned State
Counsel, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 and 5; Ms. A Talukdar, learned State Counsel,
Assam for the respondent no. 2; Shri P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. I
have also heard Shri J Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 as well as Shri RK
Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6-Accountant General, Assam.
Considering the subject matter and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties,
the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
At the outset, it is jointly submitted that the issue involved has already been
adjudicated in a number of writ petitions, including WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy v.
State of Assam and Others, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 805] whereby this Court has held
that while calculating the 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of being eligible for
post retirement benefits for a Muster Roll / Work Charged Worker, whose services were
subsequently regularized, there should not be any deduction for the period served prior to
such regularization.
It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working with the Public Works
Department and has rendered service of 21 years 10 months 30 days whereafter he had
retired on 31.05.2007. Subsequently, on 13.09.2019, the father of the petitioner had passed
away. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except terminal
Page No.# 3/3
gratuity, no other post retirement benefits, including pension have been released on the
ground of non-fulfillment of 20 years of qualifying service. Being aggrieved, the present writ
petition has been filed.
As observed above, this Court has already held in similar cases that while calculating
the 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of being eligible for post retirement benefits
for a Muster Roll / Work Charged Worker, whose services were subsequently regularized,
there should not be any deduction for the period served prior to such regularization. It is
further submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 26.02.2021 has further
explained that the benefits would be from the date of their superannuation and not from the
judgment as this was issue in another connected case namely WA 18/2021 [Binapani Das
vs. State of Assam & Ors.].
Considering the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing that the
benefits granted to the petitioners in the bunch of cases including WP(C)/1089/2015 vide the
judgment dated 04.12.2018 is also granted to the petitioner. The benefit is to be given from
the date of attaining superannuation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
The petitioner would accordingly be entitled to all post retirement benefits for the
services rendered by his father till 13.09.2019 i.e., the date of the death of the father of the
petitioner.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
