Gauhati High Court
Bidyadhar Sarmah vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 3 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010150682022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4956/2022
BIDYADHAR SARMAH
RETD. KHALASI, S/O- LATE BISHNURAM SARMAH, R/O- VILL.-
GOMATHAGAON, P.O. URIAGAON, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-781029.
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)
WATER
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/3
PIN- 781036.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.H.E.
NAGAON DIVISION
NAGAON
ASSAM
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
NAGAON
P.O. AND P.S. NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M Z SHAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2022
Heard Mr. M. Z. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the
petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the establishment of the respondent
no. 6 on 20.07.1999. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was r egularised vide office
order dated 07.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner thereafter, retired from service on
31.12.2011.
2) The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner's pension proposal has not been
acceded to by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years
of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting the initial 06 years of service as a Muster
Roll Worker.
3) The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is covered by the judgment
and order passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2019 2
Page No.# 3/3
GLT 805, wherein it has held that the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker has to
be counted for the purpose of grant of pension.
4) Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the PHE Department, Mr. H. Sarma, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.
3 & 7 fairly submit that the present case is a covered case, in terms of the judgment and
order passed in the case of Sanjita Roy & Ors (Supra).
5) In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and
keeping in view the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors (Supra), the respondent
authorities are directed to count/determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner
as a Muster Roll Worker.
6) If the petitioner's continuous length of service as a Muster Roll Worker touches the
bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of the pension should be made available to the petitioner.
7) The entire exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of
three (03) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8) The terminal gratuity, if already paid to the petitioner, shall be adjusted from the
pension and other pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner.
9) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
