Debeswar Roy Mandal @ Debeswar ... vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2576 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010144562022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/4800/2022

         DEBESWAR ROY MANDAL @ DEBESWAR MANDAL
         S/O- LATE DEBODUTTA MANDAL,
         R/O- VILLAGE- GHAIKHOWA PART-II,
         P.O- DIMAKURI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783334



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROAD), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

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

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD

         ( BOARDER ROADS AND CONSTRUCTION)
          ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-03

         5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
                                                                   Page No.# 2/4

             (A AND E)
             ASSAM
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI-29

             6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
              BADARPUR BOARDER ROAD AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
              BADARPUR

             P.O- BADARPUR

             DIST- KARIMGANJ
             ASSAM
             PIN-788802

             7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
              DHUBRI TREASURY

             P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI
             ASSAM
              PIN-78330

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

29.07.2022

Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll Worker in the Bardarpur, Border Road and Construction (BRC) Division under PWD (Roads) Department on 01.11.1988. The service of the petitioner was regularized as Khalasi (Grade-IV) w.e.f. 22.07.2005 vide Office Order No.44/2005-2006 dated 29.10.2005. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011, after rendering 22 years 3 months and 14 Page No.# 3/4

days service as a Muster Roll Worker. The petitioner's prayer for pension was rejected on the ground that there was a discrepancy with regard to the date of joining of the petitioner's service as a Muster Roll Worker, i.e. 01.11.1988 or 17.11.1988. The second ground for denying the grant of pension to the petitioner was that he had not completed 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting the initial 6 (six) years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's service as a Muster Roll Worker can be counted from 01.11.1988 or 17.11.1988 and in view of the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895, where it has been held that the entire service period of a Muster Roll worker should have to be counted, without deducting any period of service of a Muster Roll Worker, the service period of the petitioner may be counted from 17.11.1988.. He accordingly submits that as the present case is a covered case, the respondents should be directed to grant pension to the petitioner.

3. Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5; Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5, Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 7 fairly submit that they have got no objection with the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, as the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra).

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Page No.# 4/4

5. As per the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), it is clear that the entire service period of a Muster Roll worker, i.e. prior to regularization and subsequent to regularization, would have to be counted for the purpose of determining whether the Muster Roll Worker has the qualifying period of service, i.e. 20 years. It was also held in Sanjita Roy (supra) that there shall be no deduction of any period of service of a Muster Roll Worker, while determining the entire continuous length of service of the Muster Roll Worker. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to determine/count the entire length of continuous service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker and if the petitioner's service touches the bench mark of 20 years, pension should be granted to the petitioner from the date of his retirement. With regard to the discrepancy with the date of joining of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker, i.e. whether it is 01.11.1988 or 17.11.1988, this Court is of the tentative view that the same does not make any difference to the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension, as the petitioner would have 20 years of service, even if he had joined the service as a Muster Roll Worker on 17.11.1988. Accordingly the respondents are directed to accept the date of joining of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker as 17.11.1988, which is reflected in the regularization order of the petitioner, vide Office Order No.44/2005-2006 dated 29.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Bardarpur, BRC Division, PWD (Roads) Department. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner, if any, should be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant