Upen Brahma vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3560 Gua

                                                            Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010182792022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5973/2022

         UPEN BRAHMA
         SON OF LATE MAINA BRAHMA,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LANGTHIBARI,
         P.O.- BETBARI, DIST.- BAJALI,
         ASSAM, PIN- 781327.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          IRRIGATION
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI- 03.

         3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          TIHU IRRIGATION DIVISION
          TIHU
          DISTRICT- NALBARI
          ASSAM
          PIN- 781371.

         4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
         ASSAM
          MAIDAMGAON
          KRISHNAPUR
          BELTOLA TINIALI
                                                                      Page No.# 2/4

             GUWAHATI- 781028.

            5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
            ASSAM
             HOUSEFED COMPLEX
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI- 6

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N J KHATANIAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                         ORDER

Date : 14-09-2022

Heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the year 1993 in the establishment of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner's service was thereafter regularized vide Order dated 06.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2019.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have not entered the petitioner's Date of Birth, i.e., "01.12.1959" in the Regularization Order dated 06.10.2005, despite an Enquiry already having clarified the correct Date of Birth of the petitioner as 01.12.1959. The petitioner's counsel submits that due to the respondents not correcting the petitioner's Date of Birth in his Regularization Order, pension has been denied to the petitioner.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner, having worked as a Muster Roll Worker for more than 20 years, the petitioner has to be granted Page No.# 3/4

pension, in terms of the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2019 2 GLT 805.

The petitioner's counsel submits that a direction should be issued to the respondents to make a corrigendum of the petitioner's regularization Order, by incorporating the correct Date of Birth of the petitioner in the said corrigendum.

Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra). They also submit that in terms of the forwarding letter dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam and the enclosed document, the petitioner's correct Date of Birth is 01.02.1959.

In the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), this Court had held that the entire service period of a Muster Roll Worker should be counted, for the purpose of determining whether the regularized Muster Roll Worker was entitled to grant of pension. It further held that there should not be any deduction of the service period of a Muster Roll Worker, while making the computation of the continuous years of service of the said Muster Roll Worker.

Accordingly, in terms of the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondents are directed to determine the continuous years of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker and if it is found that the petitioner has 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, without deducting any period of service as a Muster Roll Worker, pension should be granted to the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/4

With regard to the correct Date of Birth of the petitioner, the letter No. CEI(E)78/2022/16 dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and the enclosed document therein clearly provides that the petitioner's correct Date of Birth is 01.12.1959. Accordingly, if the petitioner is found to have completed 20 years of continuous service as a Muster Roll Worker, the respondents shall make a corrigendum to the Regularization Order dated 06.10.2005, in respect of the petitioner only, showing the petitioner's correct Date of Birth to be 01.12.1959. The gratuity amount paid to the petitioner, if any, shall be adjusted against the pension payable to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded by the respondents, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall ensure that the pension proposal of the petitioner, if applicable, should be submitted to the respondent No. 4, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant