Gauhati High Court
Apkhu Daimari vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 27 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010036182022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1363/2022
APKHU DAIMARI
S/O- LATE DEOBAN BASUMATARY, R/O- VILL.- KOTALGURI, P.S. AND P.O.
UDALGURI, DIST.- UDALGURI (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 784508.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. 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 BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
BODOFA NAGAR
KOKRAJHAR
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (BTR)
ASSAM
PIN- 783390.
5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI-29.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHANSIRI PROJECT
CANAL-I DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN- 784509.
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
UDALGURI TREASURY
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN- 784509
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
27.05.2022
Heard Ms. U. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits
that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.07.1987 in the
office of the respondent no.6. The petitioner's service was regularized vide
order dated 06.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service
on 30.09.2011, after rendering 24 years and 3 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
Page No.# 3/4
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
benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of
pension.
3. Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 6; Ms.
M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no.2; Ms. A. Lala, learned
counsel for the respondent no.5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the
respondent no.7 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
Page No.# 4/4
the petitioner should be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
