Gauhati High Court
Smt. Lakhimai Bora vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 22 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010089322022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3126/2022
SMT. LAKHIMAI BORA
W/O LATE AKAN BORA, R/O VILL- BALIPUKHURI, P.O.-BURIGONG, P.S.-
GINJIA, DIST- BISWANATH (NOW), ASSAM, PIN-784176
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR
SERICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SERICULTURE
BISWANATH CHARIALI
DIST-BISWANATH (ASSAM)
PIN-784176
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
BISWANATH TREASURY
BISWANATH
DIST-BISWANATH (ASSAM)
PIN-78417
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 22-07-2022
Heard Ms. U Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, Mr. R
Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. P Nayak, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 6 as well as Ms. S Baruah, learned counsel
for the respondent No. 2.
The petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner's husband was serving as
a Muster Roll Worker in the Handloom, Textiles and Sericulture Department
since 01.04.1992. The petitioner's husband's service was regularised against a
Grade-IV post w.e.f. 22.07.2005. However, the petitioner's husband died-in-
harness on 11.08.2013, leaving behind the petitioner and one minor son.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are refusing to
Page No.# 3/4
process the family pension papers of the petitioner, on the ground that the
petitioner's husband had not completed 20 years of qualifying service, after
deduction of the initial 6 (six) years of service as a Muster-Roll Worker. She also
submits that the present case is a covered case, in terms of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam, reported in 2019 2
GLT 805.
Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the Finance Department submits that as
the petitioner's husband's service had been regularised w.e.f. 22.07.2005 and as
the petitioner's husband had died-in-harness after rendering 8 (eight) years of
service, the petitioner was entitled to family pension in terms of Rule 140 of the
Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969.
I have heard the counsels for the parties.
Besides the submissions made by the counsel for the Finance Department
(respondent No. 6), this Court finds that the present case is covered by the
judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), wherein this Court has directed
that the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker, i.e., prior to regularisation
and subsequent to regularisation, should be counted without deducting any
period of service of the Muster Roll Worker. In the present case, the petitioner's
husband had worked for more than 20 years as a Muster Roll Worker, as per the
averments made in the writ petition.
In view of the above facts, the State respondents are directed to verify the
continuous length of service of the petitioner's husband's as a Muster Roll
Worker and if the petitioner's husband's service reaches the benchmark of 20
(twenty) years, the benefit of family pension should be paid to the petitioner.
The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 (three)
Page No.# 4/4
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
