Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1476 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010077872022




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/2889/2022

         NAGENDRA NATH KALITA
         S/O- LATE BAPU RAM KALITA, R/O- VILL.- KALAIGAON (ADARSHA
         GAON), P.O. AND P.S. KALAIGAON, DIST. UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN-
         784525.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED 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
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-03.

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)

          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-29.

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          MANGALDAI MECHANICAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION) (I) UDALGURI
          DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784509.
                                                                      Page No.# 2/3


             6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
              MANGALDAI TREASURY
              MANGALDAI
              PIN- 784125

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

06.05.2022

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.04.1988 in the establishment of the respondent no.5. Thereafter the service of the petitioner was regularized against the Grade-IV post w.e.f. 22.07.2005 as is reflected in the letter no. Pen-7/C/A-031401/IRRI/433/2016-17/1666 dated 06.10.2016 issued by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on superannuation on 31.12.2010, after rendering 22 years and 6 months service as a Muster Roll Worker. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner's pension papers has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting the initial six years of service as a Muster Roll Worker. The petitioner was given terminal gratuity of Rs.79,112/-

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is covered by the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895, wherein it has been held that 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 Page No.# 3/3

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 22 years of service. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to count the petitioner's service, without making any deduction of his initial years of service as a Muster Roll worker and if the service of the petitioner crosses the benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pension.

3. Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 5, Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Ms. E. Yanthan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submit that they have got no objection with the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, as the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra).

4. In view of the submissions made by the counsels 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 deduction of any period of his service. If such service period reaches the bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioner. The 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 already paid to the petitioner should be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant