Chandra Prasad Hazarika @ Chandra ... vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1836 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010091212022




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/3458/2022

            CHANDRA PRASAD HAZARIKA @ CHANDRA PD. HAZARIKA
            S/O. LT. RONGAI HAZARIKA, VILL. NAHARONI, KHATIGAON, P.S.
            DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY (E) TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION
            DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

            2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

             IRRIGATION DEPTT.
             ASSAM
             CHANDMARI
             GUWAHATI-781003.

            3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
            ASSAM
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI-781036.

            4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

             GOLAGHAT DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
             GOLAGHAT
             ASSAM
             P.O. AND DIST. GOLAGHAT
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H DAS
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3


Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                        ORDER

27.05.2022

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.03.1992 in the office of the respondent no.4. The petitioner's service was regularized vide order No.172 dated 06.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2016, after rendering 24 years and 1 month 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.

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 Muster Roll worker has to be verified/counted, to see whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 years of service. He 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 24 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 Page No.# 3/3

benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pension.

3. Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 4 and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 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