Gauhati High Court
Pramila Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 8 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010019072021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/923/2021
PRAMILA GOGOI
W/O LATE RAJEN GOGOI, R/O VILL. PANICHAKUA JORHAT, P.O.
OANICHAKUA, P.S. PULIBOR, PIN 785616, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM CONSERVATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT.
R.G. BARUAH ROAD
GUWAHATI 781005
4:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
JORHAT SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION
JORHAT
PIN 785001
5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI 2
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
08.03.2021
Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's
husband was initially engaged as a Casual Muster Roll labourer in the Office of the respondent no.4 on
01.10.1992. The service of the petitioner's husband was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 vide office order
dated 20.10.2005. The petitioner's husband retired from service on 31.08.2014. The petitioner's
husband thereafter submitted an application for payment of pension and other service benefits.
However, the petitioner's husband unfortunately died on 12.07.2016 before any pension and other
pensionary benefits could be given to the petitioner's husband.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's husband rendered 21 years 3 months of
service at the time of his retirement and in view of the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 of this
Court in Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, [WP(C) 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 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.
3. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for
the respondent no.5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 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.
Page No.# 3/3
4. 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
