Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 773 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010002362022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/114/2022

         SMTI. DURGESWARI GOGOI
         W/O LATE LAMBO GOGOI, R/O VILL- BAHU PATHER, P.O.-BHOLAGURI,
         P.S.-DERGAON, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785611



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

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

         3:THE DIRECTOR
          SERICULTURE
         ASSAM
          KHANAPARA
          GUWAHATI-22

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
          MAIDMAGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-29

         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SERICULTURE
          GOLAGHAT
          DIST- GOLAGHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN-785621
                                                                             Page No.# 2/4


            6:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE
             GOLAGHAT
             DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM)
             PIN-785621

            7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
             GOLAGHAT TREASURY
             GOLAGHAT
             DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM)
             PIN-78562

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 04-03-2022

Heard Ms. U. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's husband was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the respondent No. 6 on 01.01.1976.

2. The service of the petitioner's husband was regularized vide Order dated 05.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner's husband retired from service on 31.01.2009 and expired on 06.02.2011. Though the petitioner's husband submitted his pension papers, the same was not processed on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not completed 20 (twenty) years of service as a Muster Roll worker, after deducting the initial 6 (six) years of service.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is a covered matter in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in Sanjita Roy & Others Vs. State Page No.# 3/4

of Assam & Others, 2019 (2) GLT 805 . The petitioner's counsel submits that as per the judgment of Sanjita Roy (Supra), the entire service period of the petitioner's husband as a Muster Roll worker would have to be verified to see whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 (twenty) years of service. He submits that if the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 (twenty) years of service without deduction of 6 (six) years of service, the petitioner would have to be granted family pension alongwith arrear pension payable to the petitioner's husband.

4. Mr. R. Dar, learned counsel for the Handloom Textile and Sericulture Department and Ms. A. Lala, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the judgment passed in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra). They however add that the State respondents will have to verify whether the petitioner's husband service was regularized.

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

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and keeping in view the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy (Supra), 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. The respondents will also have to verify whether the petitioner's husband service was regularized. If it is found that the petitioner's husband service was regularized and he had served for 20 (twenty) years as a Muster Roll worker, which would include both his period of service prior to regularization and after regularization, the petitioner would have to be paid family pension alongwith the arrear pension Page No.# 4/4

payable to the petitioner's husband. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the family pension/pension payable to the petitioner.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant