Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 21 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010220462021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7372/2021
TARANI KANTA RAY AND 11 ORS
S/O - LATE CHEMRU RAY, VILLAGE AND
P.O- MALANDUBI, DIST- DHUBRI,
ASSAM, PIN-783334
2: DABESWAR DAS
S/O - LATE PASIN AS
VILLAGE -UDMARI
P.O- LAKHIGANJ
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783345
3: MOZIBAR RAHMAN
S/O - LATE KASHEM ALI SK
VILLAGE- BAGHARCHAR
JHOWDANGA-II
P.O- JHOWDANGA
P.S- MANKACHAR
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783131
4: ABDUS SATTAR ALI SHEIKH
S/O - LATE MOHAMMAD ALI SHEIKH
VILLAGE -DIGHALGAON
P.O- RUPSHI
DIST- DHUBRI
Page No.# 2/8
ASSAM
PIN-783331
5: GOGASHRI NARGERY
W/O - LATE SIRENDRA BRAHMA
VILLAGE -SINGIMARI
P.O- SATYAPUR
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN-783360
6: SADHANA ROY
W/O - LATE SAMARENDRA ROY
VILLAGE - KHERAJ DAOBHANGI
P.O- RUPSHI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
7: DINOBALA BARMAN
W/O - LATE BANESWAR MAHATO
VILLAGE - LALKURA PART-I
P.O- SAHEBGANJ
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
8: HAMELA KHATUN
W/O - LATE HANIFUDDIN SHEIKH
VILLAGE- BENGERVITA
P.O- KALAPANI
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783135
9: PIYASUDDIN SHEIKH
S/O - LATE MOHIRUDDIN SHEIKH
VILLAGE-DARCHUKA
P.O- SHILAIRPAR
DIST- DHUBRI
Page No.# 3/8
ASSAM
PIN-783331
10: AMITA RAY
W/O - LATE PRABIN CHANDRA RAY
VILLAGE AND
P.O- MALANDUBI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334
11: RINA ROY
W/O - JANEN MARAK
VILLAGE-JALDIBA
P.O- PAGLAHAT
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334
12: RATIMA BRAHMA
S/O - LATE SAMAR SINGH BASUMATHARY
VILLAGE AND P.O- BANNYAGURI
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78333
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
THE GOVT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
Page No.# 4/8
GHY-06
4:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
P.O AND DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783370
5:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST AND HOFF
ASSAM
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GHY-37
6:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS CUM CHD
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM.
P.O AND DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783370
7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
8:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
PARBATJHORA FOREST DIVISION
P.O- PARBATJHORA
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN-78334
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM (p-4)
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
Page No.# 5/8
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 21-02-2022
Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.
Bhattacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing
counsel for the Accountant General are present. None appears for the BTC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case
of Kabiram Rajbongshi Vs. State of Assam and ors., 1997 (1) GLT 589, and he
has submitted that the petitioner had rendered service of the respondent
authorities as fixed pay employees / muster roll workers/ skilled labourers/
casual labourers/ plantation watchers etc. and that as they had rendered long
service, the petitioners would be entitled to pension and other pensionary
benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that pursuant to
order dated 12.07.2019, the petitioners were holding personal post and were
allowed to draw monthly salary at a fix scale of pay as well as grade pay and
other admissible allowances as per the State government norms under Revision
of Pay Rules, 2017 (ROP rules, 2017 for short), as such the petitioners are
deemed to have been regularized in service. Accordingly, by referring to Rule 31
of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, it is submitted that the case of the
petitioners would be squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of
Kabiram Rajbongshi (supra).
3. It is further submitted that in view of the long service rendered by the
petitioners, Rule 36 of the Pension Rules would come to the aid of the
petitioners because under the said Rule it is provided that on continuous
temporary or officiating services without interruption followed by confirmation
Page No.# 6/8
shall also be counted as a qualifying services. It is also submitted that under
Rule 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 provided power to the
competent authority of the State for relaxation of rules in case the rules causes
undue hardships in any particular case. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the
present case in hand, as the petitioners have served more than 20 years, and
the status of the petitioners cannot be termed as temporary appointment.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to pension.
4. Accordingly, it is submitted that after rendering more than 20 years of
service, the petitioners are allowed to superannuate without any pensionary
benefit, they would have no support in their old age and would be living life of
penury which would be in violation of provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners
has referred to the judgment of the Divison Bench of this Court in (1) The State
of Assam & anr. Vs. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi in WA 145/2009 decided on
24.03.2010, (2) Haydar Ali Mollah Vs. State of Assam & ors, in WP(C)
1121/2019 decided on 22.02.2019.
5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that in view
of the continuous rendered service of more than 20 years, a direction be issued
upon the respondent authorities for granting pensionary benefit to the
petitioners from the date he had superannuated.
6. The learned standing counsel for the respondent no.7 has pointed out
that all the three cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts
are distinguishable because in all these 3 cases, the service of the petitioners
Page No.# 7/8
therein had been regularized. On a perusal of the said cases cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that in all these three cases, the
service of the petitioners therein had been regularized and the said fact finds
mention in the judgment itself.
7. Therefore, merely because the petitioners in this present case in hand
have rendered 20 years and more service in the establishment of the
respondent no.8 under the administrative control of the respondent no.6, in the
absence of any service rule, only by dint of long service, the service of the
petitioners would not become pensionable service within the meaning of the
Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969. Therefore, the Court does not find the
petitioners to be entitled to any relief.
8. Therefore the Court is unable to issue any direction to the respondents
for grant of pension and/or other pensionary benefits for service rendered under
non-pensionable service. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed.
9. There shall be no order as to cost.
10. The Court expresses anguish that although the name of the learned SC
for the BTC is reflected in the cause list, none appeared on call for the
respondent no.6 and 8. The said practice is highly deprecated because the Court
cannot effectively discharge its function in the absence assistance by the
standing counsel for the State respondents.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, BTC to take
Page No.# 8/8
note of the learned standing counsel for not attending their cases when the
matter was called.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
