Gauhati High Court
Latika Pathak vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 2 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010036162022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1400/2022
LATIKA PATHAK
W/O- LATE HAREN PATHAK, R/O- VILL.- PURANI GORAIBARI, P.O., P..S
AND DIST. UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 784509.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
2ND
BLOCK-B
KRISHNA NAGAR
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29.
5:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
REP. BY THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
BODOFANAGAR
Page No.# 2/3
KOKRAJHAR
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHANSIRI PROJECT DIVISION
CANAL-1 (IRRIGATION) UDALGURI
DIST. UDALGURI
BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 784509.
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
UDALGURI
DIST. UDALGURI
BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 784509
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 02.03.2022
Heard Mr. K. R. Patagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
petitioner's husband was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the Office of the respondent
no.6 on 01.09.1987.
The service of the petitioner's husband was regularised vide order dated 06.10.2005
w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner's husband retired from service on 30.04.2015 and expired
on 26.08.2016.
The petitioner's case is that the pension of the petitioner's husband and family pension
payable to the petitioner has not been processed on the ground that petitioner's husband had
not completed 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting his initial six years
Page No.# 3/3
of service as a Muster Roll Worker.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the present's case is a covered case in terms of
the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in the case of Sanjita Roy & Ors Vs.
State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2019 2 GLT 805. He submits that the entire period of
service of the petitioner's husband as a Muster Roll Worker would have to be counted to see
whether the petitioner's husband had completed 20 years of service.
Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 6, Ms. M. D. Bora, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4,
Mr. S. R. Rabha, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5, and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 7 submits that the present case is covered by the judgment
and order passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors (Supra).
In view of the submission made by the counsels of the parties and on perusing the
judgment of this Court passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors (Supra), this Court finds that this case
is a covered matter.
Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to determine the continuous
length of service of the petitioner's husband as a Muster Roll Worker, without any deduction
of his service period as a Muster Roll Worker. If the service period of the petitioner's husband
crosses the 20 years bench mark, the pension of the petitioner's husband should be paid
along with family pension to the petitioner.
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, if already paid to the petitioner's husband/petitioner shall be
adjusted from the pension/family pension payable to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
