Gauhati High Court
Rajen Deka vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 29 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010062862021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2378/2021
RAJEN DEKA
S/O LATE RATIKANTA DEKA
VILLAGE AND PO KAMARGAON, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 03
5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI 29
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BARPETA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) SARBHAG
PO SARBHOG
DIST BARPETA
ASSAM
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
BARPETA TREASURY BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 29-10-2021
Heard Ms. R Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri N Upadhyay, learned
Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 6 and Ms.
MD Bora, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent no. 2. Also heard Shri R Borpujari,
learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos. 3 and 7 as well as
Shri R Ahmed, learned counsel for the Accountant General-respondent no. 5.
2. Considering the subject matter and the fact that the issue involved has already been
decided by this Court in a bunch of writ petition, the instant writ petition is taken up for
disposal at the admission stage.
3. The facts projected in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a
Muster Roll worker in the Irrigation Department under the Barpeta Division on 22.07.2005.
The petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2016 from the
Barpeta Division of the Irrigation Department, Sorbhog. The petitioner claims to have
Page No.# 3/4
rendered continuous service of 19 years 6 months and 27 days. It is the case of the petitioner
that after retirement, no post retiral benefits have been given to him. As per the information
gathered by the petitioner, the said denial is on the fact that the petitioner did not meet the
yardstick of rendering continuous service of minimum 20 years.
4. Ms. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in question is
already settled by this Court in a bunch of writ petition, the lead case being Sanjita Roy Vs.
State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805 wherein this Court had held that
while calculating the aforesaid continuous period of 20 years, there should not be any
deduction for the period of service rendered on ad hoc basis.
5. Ms. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the relevant part of the judgment by which direction has been issued to take into
account the provisions of Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (Pension
Rules) by which a discretionary power has been granted to the authorities to relax the Rules
if a retired employee failed to meet the bench mark by a period of 12 months or less. In the
instant case, the petitioner has served for a continuous period of 19 years 6 months and 27
days and the deficiency is less than 6 months.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the law laid down in the case of
Sanjita Roy (supra) has attained finality and is being routinely followed. Additionally, it is
submitted that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Binapani Das Vs. State
of Assam (WA/18/2021) vide judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 has clarified an
incidental issue that such benefits be given from the date of entitlement and not from the
date of the judgment.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner would be entitled to a similar consideration as directed in the case of Sanjita Roy
(supra). The directions in the said case regarding invocation of Rule 67 of the Pension Rules
be also applied in the present case whereby the case of the petitioner is directed to be
Page No.# 4/4
considered for relaxation so as to consider the deficiency of meeting the qualifying period by
less than 6 months. The entire exercise, as directed above, be completed expeditiously as the
petitioner is a retired employee having retired from service on 28.02.2006 and in any case
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
