Gauhati High Court
Smti Ahila Bewa vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 17 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010128532021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4302/2021
SMTI AHILA BEWA
W/O LATE LAL MIYAH, R/O VILL-FULERCHAR, P.O.-FULERCHAR, P.S.-
HATSHINGIMARI, DIST-SOUTH SALMAR MANCACHAR (NOW), ASSAM,
PIN-783135
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR
SERICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
5:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SERICULTURE
DHUBRI
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
PIN-783301
6:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SERICULTURE
SOUTH SALMARA
MANCACHER
HATSINGIMARI
PIN-783135
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
DHUBRI TREASURY
DIST-DHUBRI (ASSAM)
PIN-78330
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
17-11-2021
Heard Ms. U. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri
R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom Textile and Sericulture
Department, Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri
S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, AG for the respondent no. 4 and Shri B.
Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the Treasury Officer,
Dhubri.
Considering the subject matter and as also agreed to by the parties, the
present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
The facts as projected in the petition is that the husband of the petitioner
was serving as a Muster Roll worker in the Handloom Textile and Sericulture
Department from 01.04.1986. The said service was regularized as a Grade IV
with effect from 22.07.2005 and on 31.01.2009, the husband of the petitioner
had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Unfortunately,
Page No.# 3/3
on 12.09.2009, the husband of the petitioner passed away.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the post retirement benefits for
the service rendered by the husband have not been paid on the ground that he
had not completed the 20 years of continuous service which is the qualifying
period.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar issue has
been decided by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, the lead case being
WP(C) No. 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others, 2009
(2) GLT 805] whereby this Court has held that while calculating the 20 years
of qualifying service, there should not be any deduction.
Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 26.02.2021 has further
explained that the benefits would be from the date of their superannuation and
not from the judgment as this was issue in another connected case namely WA
18/2021 [Binapani Das vs. State of Assam & Ors.]
Considering the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by
directing that the benefits granted to the petitioners in the bunch of cases
including WP(C) 1089/2015 vide the judgment dated 04.12.2018 is also
granted to the petitioner.
It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to pension till
12.09.2009 i.e. the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner and
thereafter family pension be paid to the petitioner who is the widow of the
deceased employee.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
