Ananda Gohain vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 474 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010017892021




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/731/2021

         ANANDA GOHAIN
         S/O LATE PUNYA GOHAIN, R/O BORBAM GOHAINGAON, P.O.
         MACHKHOWA, P.S. DHEMAJI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION
         DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781006

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION

          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          LAST GATE
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 781006
          ASSAM.

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M.I.)
          IRRIGATION
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM 781003

         4:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (M.I.) AND NODAL OFFICER PENSION
         CASE

          IRRIGATION
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM 781003

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/4

             DHEMAJI DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
             DHEMAJI 787057

            6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
            ASSAM
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI 29

            7:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTANT OFFICER

             OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI 2

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                           ORDER

10.02.2021 (1) Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's pension has not been processed due to the objection taken by the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam that after deduction of the initial six years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, the petitioner does not have the qualifying service of 20 years required for grant of pension.

(2) The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker in the Irrigation Department on 18.05.1987. The petitioner's service was regularized on 05.10.2005, w.e.f, 22.07.2005 and he retired from service on 30.04.2010. He submits that in view of the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015, the petitioner's service period as a regularized Muster Roll Worker would become 23 years and as such he would be entitled to the grant of family pension.

(3) Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. N.

Page No.# 3/4

Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 & 7 submit that this case is covered by the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra).

(4) This Court in its Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam & Ors .) has held at Para-30 & 31 as follows:

"30. In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without taking recourse to the said decision this Court has considered the present writ petitions in the forgoing manner.

31. In view of above discussion and by taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as a Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench mark of 20 years without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made available to them. While carrying out said exercise, the respondent authorities are also directed to take recourse Rule 67 for those petitioners who fail to meet the bench mark of 20 years by 12 months or less. No order as to cost."

(5) In view of the fact that the present case is covered by the above Judgment, the entire service period of the petitioner w.e.f., 18.05.1987 to 30.04.2010 would have to be considered for granting of family pension to the petitioner.

(6) Accordingly, as the petitioner has completed 23 years of service, the respondent authorities are directed to process the pension proposal of the petitioner and pay the same to him, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pension will be payable to the petitioner w.e.f., 04.12.2018.

Page No.# 4/4

(7) This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant