Gauhati High Court
Radha Ranjan Bowri vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 4 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010031912022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1503/2022
RADHA RANJAN BOWRI
S/O LATE NANDALAL BOWRI, KHALASI, RETIRED ON 30.11.2014 AS
KHALASI, UNDER PHE DIVISION-II, SILCHAR, R/O VILL- HATIKURI TE
AND P.O.-BINAKANDI TEI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, ASSAM
CIVIL SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781036
3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
PHE
BARAK VALLEY ZONE
SILCHAR
GUNGUR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788014
4:THE SUPERIINTENDENT ENGINEER
PHE
CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE
Page No.# 2/4
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
SILCHAR PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION-II
SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 04-03-2022
Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits
that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the
respondent no.5 w.e.f. 01.03.1993. The petitioner's service was regularized vide
order dated 31.10.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2014. The
petitioner's prayer for grant of pension was however rejected by the respondent
no.6 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service
after deducting the initial 6 years of service as a Muster Roll worker.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is a covered
case and in terms of judgment passed in the case of Sanjita Roy and ors. Vs.
Page No.# 3/4
State of Assam and ors., 2019 (2) GLT 805 , 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 21 years of service. He accordingly submits that a
direction should be issued upon the respondent authorities to count the
petitioner's service without making any reduction of his initial years of service as
a Muster Roll worker and if the petitioner crosses the benchmark of 20 years,
the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pension.
3. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr.
A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submit that they have got
no objection with the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner as the present
case appears to be a covered matter.
4. In view of the submission made by the counsel 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 deducting any period
of his service as a Muster Roll worker. If such service period meets the
benchmark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the
petitioner. The exercise should be completed within a period of 3(three) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted
Page No.# 4/4
from the pension payable to the petitioner.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
