Shipra Paul vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2219 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010120042020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3537/2020

         SHIPRA PAUL
         W/O LT. SUDHIR PAUL, R/O VILL. MAIBANG, SUBHASH NAGAR, P.O.
         MAIBANG, P.S. MAIBANG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788831



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPTT. DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6

         4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          N.C. HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIMA HASAO
          HAFLONG
          PIN-788819

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PWD (R AND B)
          MAIBANG DIVISION
          MAIBANG
          PIN-788831

         6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/2

             ASSAM
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GHY-2

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                            ORDER

15.09.2021

Opposing the claim of the petitioner for pensionery benefits by including the period of six years of his total service which was deducted at the time when the pensionery benefits were settled in the year 2013, Mr. R K Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent makes a submission that the pension of the petitioner was settled prior to the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam & others reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805.

Accordingly, it is the submission that the claim of the petitioner for pensionery benefits by including the six years already deducted cannot be reopened any further.

Admittedly, the pensionery benefits of the petitioner were settled by deducting the six years of his total service period. In the meantime the law had been laid down that deducting of six years service is inapplicable.

Mr. R K Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent to make submission as to why the same principle of law as laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra) cannot be made applicable for those cases where the pension has already been settled.

For further examination, list after two weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant