Gauhati High Court
Md. Khalil Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 22 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010055022021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2004/2021
MD. KHALIL AHMED
S/O LATE JALALUDDIN AHMED,
RESIDENT OF GANDHIA (BALAPARA) PO GANDHIA, PS BELSOR, DIST
NALBARI, ASSAM 781304
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR. GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANPSORT
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781004
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
GUWAHATI DIVISION
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI 781007
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAML PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 22.03.2021
Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the
petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker by the respondent No. 2 on
31.01.1992. His service was regularized on 07.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The
petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 29.02.2016. Though the
petitioner submitted his pension papers, the same had not been processed on the
ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of continuous service as Muster
Roll Worker, after deducting the initial 6 (six) years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is a covered case and
in terms of the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy and others
-Vs- State of Assam and others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, the entire service period
of the petitioner, as a Muster Roll Worker has to be verified, to see whether the
petitioner had completed 20 years of continuous service. He submits that if there was
no deduction of the initial 6 (six) years of service from the petitioner's entire service
period as a Muster Roll Worker, the petitioner would have completed 24 years of
service. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent
authorities to verify whether the petitioner had the benchmark of 20 years of
continuous service as a Muster Roll Worker, without deducting any years of service as
a Muster Roll Worker and if the petitioner is found to have 20 years of continuous
service as a Muster Roll Worker, the respondents should process the pension papers of
Page No.# 3/3
the petitioner.
Ms. M. D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. A.
Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 submit that the present case is covered by the case of
Sanjita Roy and others (supra).
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and
keeping in view the judgment in the case of Sanjita Roy and others (supra), the
respondents are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the
petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker, without any deduction of his service as a Muster
Roll Worker and if his service period meets the benchmark of 20 years, the benefit of
grant of pension should be made available to the petitioner. The counting of 20 years
of service will include the entire period of Muster Roll service of the petitioner, i.e., the
period prior to regularization and the period after regularization. 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. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be
adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner, if any.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
