Gauhati High Court
Saraswati Khakhlary vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 17 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010201442021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6541/2021
SARASWATI KHAKHLARY
WIDOW OF LATE TIRESH KHAKLARY, EX REG M/R LABOUR R/O VILL.
JOYSING TERON GAON (BIRLA), P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU, DIST. KARBI
ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN 782462
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PENSION AND
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI 29
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD DIPHU ROADS DIVISION
DIPHU
KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN 782460
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/5
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PENSION
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 17-05-2022
Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 4 as
well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 and Ms.
R.M. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel
for the respondent no.3 and Ms. A. Tarana, learned counsel appears on behalf
of Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband late Tiresh Khakhlary
used to work as a regular labour in the office of the respondent no.3. Her
husband died on 04.02.2018 and accordingly, the petitioner had approached the
authorities for family pension as well as for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
(DCRG for short). The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in
the meanwhile the petitioner had started receiving family pension. Therefore,
the only claim in this writ petition is for DCRG.
3. None of the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition to deny
the claim of the petitioner. However, the learned standing counsel for the
respondent no.2 has produced a copy of the instructions dated 03.02.2022 from
Page No.# 3/5
the senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell of the respondent no.2 to the effect that
DCRG could not be authorised as net qualifying service of her deceased
husband after deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service, stood less than
20 years and that the service of the petitioner was also not confirmed. It is
further stated therein that after the judgment and order passed in the case of
Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2)
GLT 805, till date no instructions has been received from the Pension and Public
Grievance Department in the matter of non-deduction of initial 6 years of
muster roll service.
4. The Court is appalled to note that despite the judgment of this Court
in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent no.4 i.e. the Commissioner
and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance Department
has not done the needful to issue proper direction to the concerned authorities
for not deducting initial 6 years of muster roll service. The inaction on the part
of the respondent no.4 to comply with the directions contained in the judgment
of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) has resulted in multiplying of the
cases before this Court. The inaction in part of the said authority has compelled
the petitioner to approach the Court for redressal of her grievance which could
have settled by the respondent no.4.
5. The Court is conscious of the fact that in this case the petitioner is
merely interested in the redressal of her grievance for DCRG. Nonetheless, this
Court being a Court of equity is inclined to express its hope that the respondent
no.4 i.e. Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension and Public
Grievance Department would consider issuance of an appropriate application to
Page No.# 4/5
all the concerned D.D.O.s i.e. Drawing and Disbursing officers in the matter of
non-deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service. The Court hopes and
trusts that the respondent no.4 would take an appropriate decision in the
matter.
6. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the
Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by allowing the prayer and
directing the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, PWD, Diphu
Roads Division (respondent no.3), the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt.
of Assam,, P&RD (respondent no.4) and the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department (respondent no.5) to issue an appropriate direction for non-
deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service of the petitioner and issue an
appropriate authorisation to the Accountant General (A&E), Assam (respondent
no.2) to enable the said authority to release DCRG to the petitioner. The said
three authorities i.e. the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 shall do the needful within
the outer period of 2(two) months from the date of furnishing the certified copy
of the order to respondent no.3.
7. In order to expedite the matter, the learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5 shall
send a downloaded copy of this order to the said authorities to bring the order
to their notice.
8. The learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 shall provide a
photocopy of the instructions to be retained on record.
Page No.# 5/5
9. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
