Gauhati High Court
Prava Rani Devi vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 30 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010100782022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3497/2022
PRAVA RANI DEVI
W/O. LT. DHIRENDRA NATH BHAGAWATI,
VILL. KHUDRA MAKHIBAHA, P.O. MAKHIBAHA,
DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781374.
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPTT.
2ND BLOCK-B KRISHNA NAGAR CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TIHU DAKHIN BAJALI MECHANICAL
DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DEPTT. NALBARI P.O. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM PIN-781335.
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION
Page No.# 2/3
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 30-05-2022
Heard Ms. U. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, who
submits that the petitioner's husband was engaged as a Muster Roll worker
in the establishment of the respondent No.5 on 01.11.1990. Thereafter his
services was regularized vide order dated 03.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The
petitioner's husband retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.01.2015 and expired on 04.12.2020.
The petitioner's prayer for grant of pension was declined by the
respondent authorities on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not
completed 20 years of regular service as a Muster Roll worker, after
deducting 6 years of initial service as a Muster Roll worker.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner should be given
arrear pension and family pension, as the present case is covered by the
judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam &
Ors., reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805. She submits that in terms of the
above judgment, the respondent authorities would have to count the entire
service period of the petitioner's husband, i.e. prior to regularization and
after regularization as a Muster Roll worker. She submits that if the entire
service period of the petitioner's husband is verified and counted, the same
would be 24 years 2 months, which would entitle grant of arrear pension
and family pension to the petitioner.
Ms. D.S. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4;
Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No.2; Mr. A. Ahmed,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel
Page No.# 3/3
for the respondent No.6 fairly submit that the present case is covered by
the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra).
On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, the respondent authorities are directed to
determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner's husband as a
Muster Roll worker. If the continuous length of service of the petitioner's
husband as a Muster Roll worker crosses the benchmark of 20 years, the
respondents should give arrear pension and family pension to the petitioner.
The entire exercise should be conducted within a period of 3(three) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Gratuity
amount already paid to the petitioner's husband should be adjusted against
the arrear pension/ family pension payable to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
