Golap Borgohain vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1956 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010103922022




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/3643/2022

         GOLAP BORGOHAIN
         SON OF JIBESWAR BORGOHAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAMDUNG
         GOHAIN GAON, P.O.- KUMURAJAN, IN THE DISTRICT OF SIBASAGAR,
         ASSAM, PIN- 785664.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
          GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
          GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006.

         4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
         ASSAM
          IRRIGATION
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI- 781003.

         5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
         ASSAM
                                                                     Page No.# 2/4

             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI- 781029.

             6:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER
              OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
             ASSAM
              MAIDAMGAON
              BELTOLA
              GUWAHATI- 781029.

             7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
              SIBASAGAR DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
              SIBASAGAR
              IN THE DISTRICT OF SIBASAGAR
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                        ORDER

03.06.2022

Heard Mr. G.R.A. Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.07.1992 in the establishment of the respondent no.7. The petitioner's service was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2018, after rendering 25 years 8 months and 30 days service as a Muster Roll Worker. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner's pension papers has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting the initial six years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is covered by the Page No.# 3/4

judgment passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895, wherein it has been held that the entire service period of the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker has to be verified/counted, to see whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 years of service. He accordingly submits that if there is no deduction of 6 years of service from the petitioner's entire service period as a Muster Roll worker, the petitioner would have completed more than 25 years of service. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to count the petitioner's service, without making any deduction of his initial years of service as a Muster Roll worker and if the service of the petitioner crosses the benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pension. He also submits that though the Under Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department had written a letter dated 11.03.2019 to the respondent no.5 forwarding the petitioner's pension proposal, no action has been taken upon the same.

3. Ms. T.S. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 7; Ms. A. Tarana, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.2; Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 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. In view of the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent authorities are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker, without deduction of any period of his service. If such service period reaches the bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioner. The Page No.# 4/4

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 should be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant