Tarini Kanta Sarmah vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 865 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010038492021




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1424/2021

         TARINI KANTA SARMAH
         S/O LATE RATNESWAR SARMAH
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAPHITALI PO NIBUKALI, PS NAGAON, DIST
         NAGAON, ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,ASSAM SACHIBALAYA, DISPUR
         GUWAHATI 06

         2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
          ASSAM SACHIBALAYA
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 6

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING )
          GOVT. OF ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI 03

         4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION
         CHANDMARI
         GUWAHATI 781003
         KAMRUP M ASSAM

         5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3

             GUWAHATI 781029
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner     : MR. S ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                              ORDER

Date : 08.03.2021 Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. S. K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was appointed as Muster Roll Worker in the year 1990. His service was regularized on 22.07.2005 and retired from service on 31.01.2015. The petitioner thus completed 25 years of service as on the date he retired. He submits that the petitioner's pension has not been paid by the respondents till date.

He also submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy -Vs- State of Assam, WP(C) No.1089/2015, which held that the entire service period of a regularized Muster Roll employee, including the period of service prior to regularization had to be counted for the purpose of granting pension to the said person, the petitioner has to be given pension/family pension. He also submits that the judgment of Sanjita Roy (supra) was considered by the Division Bench in WA 18/2020 wherein it held that the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated Muster Roll workers, irrespective of the dates of their retirement.

Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. S.K. Hazarika, learned Page No.# 3/3

counsel for the respondent no.5 submit that the petitioner's case would have to be considered by determining petitioner's husband's entire length of service as a Muster Roll employee.

In view of the submission made by the counsels for the parties and keeping in view of the judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed in WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others) and the order dated 26.02.2021 passed in WA 18/2021, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, for payment of pension and family pension, after verifying whether the service of the petitioner's husband met the benchmark of 20 years, without any deduction of service period. Needless to add that all other pensionary benefits that may be payable to the petitioner shall be paid by the respondents. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the pension / family pension payable to the petitioner, if any. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant