Tupen Barman vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 978 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010050692022




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1906/2022

         TUPEN BARMAN
         S/O- LATE NANDI BARMAN, R/O- VILLAGE- JOYBHUM, P.O-
         CHORAIKHOLA, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM, PIN-783376



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HANDLOOM TEXTILE
         AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-781006

         3:THE DIRECTOR
          OF SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT
          BELTOLA KHANAPARA ROAD
          NEAR SCIENCE MUSEUM

          KHANAPARA
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM
          PIN-781022

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
          (A AND E)
         ASSAM
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/4

             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GHY-29

            5:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
             REP. BY THE SECRETARY
             SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT
             BODOFA NAGAR
             KOKRAJHAR
             DIST- KOKRAJHAR
             BTAD
            ASSAM
             PIN-783370

            6:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
             SERICULTURE
             DIST- KOKRAJHAR
             BTAD
            ASSAM
             PIN-783370

            7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
             KOKRAJHAR
             DIST- KOKRAJHAR
             BTAD
            ASSAM
             PIN-78337

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 21-03-2022

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the present case is covered by the Judgment & Order of this Court in Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & Ors., 2019 2 GLT 805. He also submits that he is not pressing his prayer for setting aside the O.M dated 20.05.2019.

Page No.# 3/4

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's father was engaged as Muster Roll worker on 10.11.1988 in the office of the respondent No. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner's father service was regularized on 14.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005 against a Grade-IV post, which was made personal to him. The petitioner's father retired from service on 31.01.2011 and expired on 31.08.2011. The petitioner's mother expired on 12.07.2018 without receiving any pension and pensionary benefits. After the death of the petitioner's father and mother, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.11.2010 for release of arrear retirement benefits on being authorized by his elder brother.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the petitioner's father was entitled to payment of pension and his mother was entitled to family pension, a direction should be issued to the respondent authority for payment of pension, inasmuch as, the petitioner's father had completed 22 years and 9 months of service as Muster Roll employee in terms of the Judgment & Order of this Court in Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & Ors. (supra).

4. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. S. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the Judgment & Order of this Court in Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & Ors. (supra).

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and keeping in view the Judgment & Order of this Court in Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & Ors. (supra), the respondent authorities are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner's father as a Muster Roll worker, without any deduction of his service period as Muster Roll worker. If such service period meets the bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available. The counting of 20 years will include the entire period of Muster Roll service i.e., prior to regularization and after regularization. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order. In Page No.# 4/4

the event the petitioner's father had completed 20 years of service, the arrear pension payable to the petitioner's father and the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner's mother should be given to the petitioner and his elder brother in equal share. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner's father, if any, shall be adjusted from arrear pension and family pension payable to the petitioner and his elder brother.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant