Tilok Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2901 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010152242022




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/5170/2022

         TILOK GOGOI
         S/O LATE GATHIRAM GOGOI, R/O VILL-PHUTAHOLA, P.O.-PHUTAHOLA
         VIA LAHOWAL, DIST-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786010


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

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

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
         WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
          2ND
          BLOCK-B
          KRISHNA NAGAR
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-03

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-29

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIBRUGARH W.R. DIVISION
          DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM
          PIN-786001
                                                                          Page No.# 2/3

            6:THE TRESURY OFFICER
             DIBRUGARH
             DIST-DIBRUGARH
            ASSAM
             PIN-78600

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 10-08-2022

Heard Ms. U Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the establishment of the respondent No. 5 on 01.04.1991. The petitioner's service was regularised w.e..f 22.07.2005 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner has not been granted pension on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deduction of the initial 6 (six) years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam, reported in 2019 2 GLT 805, wherein it has been held that the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker should be counted in determining whether the Muster Roll Worker had the qualifying 20 (twenty) years of service for grant of pension.

Page No.# 3/3

Ms. J Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, & 5, Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and Ms. S Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra).

In view of the consent of the parties and keeping in view the decision of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondents are directed to determine the continuous service period of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker, without deducting any period of his service as a Muster Roll Worker. If the petitioner's service period as a Muster Roll Worker touches the benchmark of 20 (twenty) years, pension should be granted to the petitioner.

The entire exercise should be conducted within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The gratuity amount paid to the petitioner, if any should be adjusted against the pension payable to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant