Gobinda Chandra Das vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2390 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010078232021




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3245/2021

         GOBINDA CHANDRA DAS
         S/O BINANDI DAS,
         RESIDENT OF 4 NO. HAROPARA, PO JAROBARI, PS PALASBARI, DIST
         KAMRUP ASSAM, 781025



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT (ROADS) ASSAM
         SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND P.G. DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI 781029

         5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROAD) ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI 781003

         6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                                                                          Page No.# 2/3


             PWD GUWAHATI ROAD DIVISION
             GUWAHATI 781001

            7:THE TREASURY OFFICER

             GUWAHATI 781001
             DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B P SINHA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                          ORDER

Date : 01.10.2021

Heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the PWD and Finance Department, Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel for the Accountant General and Mr. R. Ahmed, learned standing counsel for the Pension and Public Grievance Department.

Aggrieved by non-granting of pension, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,.

It is projected in this writ petition that the petitioner had joined service as Muster Roll worker on 01.07.1987 and his service was regularized by order dated 30.09.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2012. Thereafter, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam had sanctioned Rs.2,30,958/- only and issued a letter to the Treasury Officer, Kamrup (Metropolitan) ton 28.10.2014, but did not sanction other pension benefits like monthly pension, death cum retirement gratuity etc. because the petitioner had not completed the net qualifying service of 20 (twenty) years Page No.# 3/3

after deduction of 6 (six) years initial service before regularization. The petitioner had submitted an application for relaxation for his shortfall of 1 (one) year 11 (eleven) months for admissibility of pension to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati (Roads) Division and the same is forwarded to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), however, the same is rejected.

This Court by virtue of judgment and order passed in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (2019) 4 GLR 97, had already held the deduction of 6 years of service as Muster Roll is impermissible. Therefore, without deduction of 6 years, the petitioner would have rendered more than 20 years of service, as such, he would be entitled to pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, in terms of ratio laid down in case of Sanjita Roy (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to work out the pensionery benefits in favour of the petitioner and release the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of downloaded copy of this order. The concerned respondents are at liberty to verify the correctness of the order from the website of the Court.

It is also clarified that if any terminal benefit has been paid to the petitioner, such payment may be adjusted at the time of finalization of the pension.

This writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant