Gauhati High Court
Nripesh Ranjan Das vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 24 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010025352021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/930/2021
NRIPESH RANJAN DAS
S/O LATE KSHIROD CHANDRA DAS, VILL. AND P.O. DHARMIKHAL
GRANT, P.S. DHOLAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788116
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 36
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
SILCHAR DIVISION II
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 788014
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI 2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 24.03.2021
Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits
that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the office of the
respondent No. 3 on 01.03.1993. The petitioner's service was regularised vide order
dated 06.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2015.
The petitioner thereafter submitted his pension papers. However, the same has not
been processed on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of
service after deducting the initial 6 years of service as a Muster Roll worker.
2. He submits that the present case is a covered case and in terms of the
judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in the case of Sanjita Roy and Others vs.
State of Assam and Others [WP(C) 1089/2015], the entire service period of the
petitioner as a Muster Roll worker has to be verified to see whether the Muster Roll
worker had completed 20 years of service. He accordingly submits that if there is no
deduction of 6 years of service from the petitioner's entire service period as a Muster
Roll worker, the petitioner would have completed 25 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 service as a Muster Roll
worker, without deducting any year of service as a Muster Roll worker and if the
petitioner had 20 years of continuous service as a Muster Roll worker, the respondents
should process the pension papers of the petitioner for payment.
3. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. R. K.
Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submit that the present case is
covered by the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in the case of Sanjita
Roy (supra).
4. In view of the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and keeping
Page No.# 3/3
in view the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Sanjita Roy and Others vs.
State of Assam and Others (WP(C) 1089/2015), the respondent authorities are
directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster
Roll worker, without any deduction of his service period as a Muster Roll worker and if
such service period meets the benchmark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be
made available to the petitioner. The counting of 20 years will include the entire period
of Muster Roll service i.e. prior to regularization and after regularization. The exercise
should be completed within a period of 3 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.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
