Gauhati High Court
Narapati Bhuyan vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 15 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010034102021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1228/2021
NARAPATI BHUYAN
S/O LATE RAMSINGH BHUYAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO AGCHIA, PS PALASHBARI, (MIRZA) DIST
KAMRUP R ASSAM, 751128
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONERR AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI 06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
GUWAHATI ROAD DIVISION
GUWAHATI 01
5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
Page No.# 2/3
GUWAHATI 2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
15.03.2021
Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was
engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the Office of the respondent no.4 on 01.08.1991. The petitioner's
service was regularized vide order dated 30.09.2005. w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from
service on 31.05.2013. The petitioner thereafter submitted his pension papers. The grievance of the
petitioner is that pension was denied to him 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. The petitioner's counsel 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, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, the entire service period of the petitioner as a
Muster Roll worker has to be counted, 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 21
years 9 months and 30 days 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 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 grant pension to the petitioner.
3. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, Mr. R. Borpujari,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel appearing for
Page No.# 3/3
respondent no.5 fairly submit that they have no objection to the prayer of the petitioner's counsel, in
view of the fact 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 in view the
judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent authorities are
directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker,
without making any deduction of his service period as a Muster Roll worker. If such service period
meets the benchmark of 20 years of continuous service, the benefit of pension should be made
available to the petitioner. The counting of 20 years will include the entire period prior to
regularization as a Muster Roll worker and the period 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
