Gauhati High Court
Nisha Rani Paul vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010218072022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6916/2022
NISHA RANI PAUL
W/O LATE DIJENDRA PAUL, R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN, WARD NO-4,
BANKIM CHANDRA LANE, P.O.-HAILAKANDI, LALA ROAD, DIST-
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788151
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
5:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788151
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-78815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 02-11-2022
Heard Ms. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the office of the District
Agriculture Officer, Hailakandi from 01.12.1989.
The petitioner's service was regularized vide Order dated 05.10.2005 w.e.f.
22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2012. The petitioner's grievance is that pension has
been denied to her by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner does
not have the qualifying 20 years of service, after deducting the initial 6 years of
service as a Muster Roll Worker.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is covered by the
judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in
Page No.# 3/4
2019 (2) GLT 805. She submits that in terms of the judgment of this Court in
Sanjita Roy (supra), the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker would
have to be counted for the purpose of grant of pension, without deducting any
period of service of a Muster Roll Worker.
Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Ms. R. Bora,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5, Mr. H. Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. A. Lala, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 4 fairly submit that this is a covered case.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and
keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), it is clear that
the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker would have to be counted, for
the purpose of determining whether the said Muster Roll Worker has the
qualifying 20 years of continuous service as a Muster Roll Worker. There can be
no deduction of the service period of a Muster Roll Worker.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to determine the entire service
period of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker and if it is found that the
petitioner has got the benchmark of 20 years required for the purpose of grant
of pension, pension would have to be granted to the petitioner.
The entire exercise should be carried out within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The gratuity amount paid earlier, if any, shall be adjusted against the
pension payable to the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/4
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
