Gauhati High Court
Momtaz Begum Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 16 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010047712022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1837/2022
MOMTAZ BEGUM LASKAR
W/O- ROFIQUERE RAHMAN LASKAR, VILL. AND P.O. SATKARAKANDI PT.-
I, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE (BUDGET) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019.
4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CDC
CACHAR
SILCHAR
PIN- 788001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 16/03/2022
The petitioner who was appointed as a Hindi teacher in Satkarakandi
High School in the Cachar district was provincialised in service by the order
dated 22.03.2013 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. One of
the conditions stated in the order of provincialisation is that the petitioner
would be governed by the New Pension Rules, 2005.
2. The petitioner assails the said provision in the provincialisation order by
referring to an order dated 12.05.2015 in WP(C) 4169/2009. Paragraph-18 of
the order dated 12.05.2015 is extracted below
" In view of the fact that the judgment and order dated 01.09.2003 has attained finality
and as it has been directed in the Direction No. 6 that all appointments made would be
prospective but will carry the benefit of past services fo
r the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits, I find that the petitioners' service
should be counted as per the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and the benefit of past
service should be counted for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits."
3. A reading of the paragraph-18 of the order dated 12.05.2015 makes it
discernible that earlier there was a judgment dated 01.09.2003 in CR
No.1571/1998 in respect of such category of teachers who were not
provincialised along with others in their respective schools but subsequently
provincialised. Such orders of provincialisation would be prospective but will
carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of pensionary benefit. As on
13.01.2003 the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 was in force and
therefore, it was understood that the past service would be for the purpose of
computation of pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. From
2005 onwards the New Defined Pension Scheme/Rule is in force. In paragraph-
Page No.# 3/3
18 it has been provided without stating any reason that as the past benefit was
given in the order dated 01.09.2003, therefore, the petitioner in the said writ
petition would be covered by the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. Apart
from the expression 'I find' no reason as such is stated as to why the petitioner
therein would be covered by the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.
4. Mr. N.H. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
present petitioner is also covered by the provision of paragraph-18 of the order
dated 12.05.2015. If the provision in the order dated 12.05.2015 in paragraph-
18 was made without providing for any reason the learned counsel to make
further submission as to how the said provision would be binding in subsequent
proceedings.
5. As prayed for, list after two weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
