Baliram Boro vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3546 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010160032021




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/5314/2021

         BALIRAM BORO
         S/O LATE PHENU BORO, VILL. LAHAPARA, P.O. BIHAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP
         (ASSAM), PIN 781365



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         IRRIGATION DEPTT. OF DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          FINANCE DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 06

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 06

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
         ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI 29

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          RANGIA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) RANGIA
          DIST. KAMRUP
          ASSAM
          PIN 781354
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3


            6:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

             RANGIA SUB DIVISION (IRRIGATION) RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP
             ASSAM
             PIN 781354

            7:THE TREASURY OFFICER

             RANGIA
             DIST. KAMRUP
             ASSAM
             PIN 78135

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR K BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                       BEFORE
             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                       ORDER

20.12.2021 Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 7, Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. A. Hassan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 4.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of his pensionary benefit on the ground that he is having less than 20 years of service. The petitioner contends that he was engaged as Muster Roll worker on 01.05.1992 and retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. His service was regularized on 22.07.2005. Therefore, he had the required qualifying service of 20 years if it is counted from his initial date of appointed as Muster Roll worker.

Page No.# 3/3

The learned counsel submits that the respondent authority has issued the impugned order dated 02.11.2018, whereby his claim for regular pension was rejected.

It is stated at the bar and agreed to by all the counsels that the Government decision to deduct initial six years of service of Muster Roll workers while calculating 20 years of qualifying period has been interfered with by this court in Sanjita Roy and Others -Vs- State of Assam and Others reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805. In view of such decision, the petitioner is now entitled for the pension.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy and Others (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner. The terminal gratuity already paid may be adjusted from the final pension of the petitioner.

In the aforesaid terms, this writ petition is disposed of, however, no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant