Tarini Kanta Mandal vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2185 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010121702022




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/4157/2022

            TARINI KANTA MANDAL
            S/O- LATE UMA KANTA MANDAL, R/O- VILL- AND P.O.- MALOIBARI, P.S.-
            KHETRI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN - 781150.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
            GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI-06.

            2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             GUWAHATI DIVISION IRRIGATION
             GUWAHATI- 07.

            3:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM

             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI- 29.

            4:THE TREASURY OFFICER
             KAMRUP(M)
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI-01

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3

                           BEFORE
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                    ORDER

24.06.2022

Heard Mr. H Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 being the authorities under the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 being the Principal Accountant, General (A & E), Assam and Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 being the Treasury Officer, Kamrup(Metro), Assam.

2. The petitioner who was serving as a Muster Roll Worker having been appointed on 01.12.1991 was regularised in service by the order dated 06.10.2005. Upon serving the complete tenure, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2018. On his retirement, the authorities have issued a pension payment order whereby six years of qualifying service was deducted considering that the petitioner was a muster roll worker. It has already been decided by this Court in its judgment dated 04.12.2018 in WP(C)No.1089/2015 that the six years of qualifying period for the purpose of the pensionery benefits cannot be deducted from the qualifying service of a muster roll worker subsequently regularised.

3. In view of the law laid down, we interfere with the PPO No.919711284012 in respect of the petitioner which had been determined by deducting the qualifying period of six years from his service tenure. Accordingly, we direct the Page No.# 3/3

Senior Accounts Officer in the Office of the Principal Accountant General, (A & E) Assam to pass a fresh PPO without deducting the qualifying period of six years from the service tenure of the petitioner and accordingly the pension and DCRG be paid to the petitioner.

4. The above requirement may be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

5. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant