Gauhati High Court
Muhini Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 16 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010226312022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7129/2022
MUHINI SAIKIA
W/O- LATE PURNANANDA SAIKIA,
VILLAGE- CHAKIAL GAON,
P.O.- PULIKAITONI,
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,
PIN- 785631.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
JURIPAR
SIX MILE
GUWAHATI- 37.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOLAGHAT ZILLA PARISHAD
GOLAGHAT
P.O. AND DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621.
7:TREASURY OFFICER
GOLAGHAT TREASURY
GOLAGHAT
P.O. AND DIST.- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS RUKMINI BARUA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
16.12.2022
Heard Ms. R. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.
K. Devnath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos.1, 4 & 6. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel,
Page No.# 3/5
Finance Department for the respondent Nos.3 & 7 as well as Mr. R. Dhar,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 5.
The of the petitioner is that by a judgment and order dated
24.03.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.145/2009 and WP(C) No.4239/2009 it
was observed that the benefit of the provisions of the Assam Services
(Pension) Rules, 1969 including those for pension and other retirement
benefit would be available to the provincialized employees in service on and
after 01.10.19 91 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from
the date of their initial appointment.
In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner was appointed on
29.10.1963 and he retired on 28.02.2000. The gross service period of the
husband of the petitioner was 36 years 3 months 29 days. But, while
preparing the pension pay order, 10 years 9 months and 9 days was
excluded, and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner was only granted a
pension amount of Rs.1,651/-. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved
taking into account that he was one of the petitioners in WP(C)
No.4239/2009 in whose favour the observations were made in the common
judgment and order dated 24.03.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.145/2009
and WP(C) No.4239/2009 had approached this Court by filing a writ petition
which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2226/2019. This Court,
after taking into consideration the respective submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the said writ petition with the
following observations and directions which are quoted herein under:-
"7) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
materials on record, this Court is of the view that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the decision taken by the Division
Page No.# 4/5
Bench in Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra) and as such is entitled to count
the entire length of service w.e.f. 29.10.1963 for the purpose of grant of
pension and other retiral benefit.
8) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though, the
petitioner had not granted net pension of Rs.2136/- as per the service
rendered, he has been granted the net pension of Rs.1651/- only.
9) In view of above, as the petitioner is entitled to count the entire
length of service for pensionary and other benefits under the aforesaid
Act, the authorities will work out the entitlements of the pension and
DCRG and accordingly, issue fresh orders in supersession of the earlier
orders issued by the authorities, which exercise shall be undertaken by
the respondent authorities within a period of two months from today.
The aforesaid amount due will also bear interest @ 6% per annum."
From the above quoted paragraphs, it would be clear that this Court
has categorically come to a finding that the case of the husband of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.145/2009 and WP(C) No.4239/2009, and as such, it was further
observed that the husband of the petitioner's entire length of service with
effect of 29.10.1963 should be counted for the purpose of grant of pension
and other retiral benefits. This Court further directed that the authorities
concerned will work out the entitlement of the pension/DCRG and issue of
fresh order in supersession of the earlier order issued by the authorities
and that the said exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent
authorities within a period of two months from the date of the said order. It
was also made clear that the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest of 6%
per annum. This order was passed on 03.04.2019. Thereupon the husband
of the petitioner expired. But the respondent authorities did not do
Page No.# 5/5
anything in that matter which necessitated the petitioner to file various
representations before the authorities as could be seen in Annexure-7
series.
Although there was a specific direction to work out everything within
a period of two months, but till date, nothing has been done and the file as
regards the petitioner's entitlement is rolling from one table to the other,
and as such, the petitioner has again approached this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Let notice be issued, returnable on 06.01.2023.
As all the respondents have been duly represented, no fresh notice
need be issued. However, extra copies of the writ petition be served upon
the learned counsel for the aforesaid represented respondents within 3
(three) days from today.
On the returnable date, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, and more particularly, the respondent Nos.1, 4 & 6 shall
indicate by way of an affidavit as to why the petitioner's family pension
been has not been worked out till date in terms with the direction passed
by this Court on 03.04.2019 in WP(C) No.2226/2019.
Pendency of the instant notice shall not be a bar for the respondent
authorities to grant benefits to the petitioner in terms with the direction of
this Court in its order dated 03.04.2019 in WP(C) No.2226/2019
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
