Gauhati High Court
Haya Nampui vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 28 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010200862022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6462/2022
HAYA NAMPUI
S/O- LT. P.C. ROYA NAMPUI, VILL- NEW SANGBAR, P.O. AND P.S.
UMRANGSO, DIST.- DIMA HASAO (ASSAM), PIN- 788931
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, ASSAM, GHY-06
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING)
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GHY-36
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING)
UMRANGSO DIVISION
UMRANGSO
ASSAM
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-29
5:THE COMM. AND SECY.
FINANCE DEPTT.
ASSAM
DISPUR
Page No.# 2/4
GHY-6
6:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
7:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
HAFLONG
DIST.- DIMA HASAO
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
28.09.2022
Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A
Barua, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 being the authorities
under the PHED, Assam, Ms. J Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No.3
and 7 being the authorities under the NC Hills Autonomous Council, Ms. D Deka,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4 being the Accountant General, Assam,
Mr. R Barpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the authorities
under the Finance Department, Government of Assam and Mr. H Sarma, learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.6 being the
authorities under the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Government of
Assam.
Page No.# 3/4
2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker as Khalasi on
08.11.1990 in the office of the Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering,
Umrangso Division, Umrangso in the Dima Hasao district. Subsequently he was
regularised as a Section Assistant by the order dated 28.02.2016 and he retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2016.
3. Under the law, it has to be understood that although the petitioner was
initially appointed as a Muster Roll Worker, he retired from service as a regular
employee. The law relating to pension for Muster Roll Workers, subsequently
regularised is that he should have a total qualifying period of 20 years of
service. Admittedly, as the petitioner was appointed on 08.11.1990 and he
retired on 29.02.2016, he had a combined qualifying service of more than 20
years. In the meantime, by the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy and
Others Vs. State of Assam and Others , reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805 it has been
held that the six years of qualifying service as a Muster Roll Worker cannot be
deducted for the purpose of pensionery benefits.
4. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that as the
petitioner had a combined qualifying service of more than 20 years, he is
entitled for pension. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 being the Executive
Engineer Public Health Engineering, Umrangso Division, Umrangso, in the Dima
Hasao district is directed to examine the service records of the petitioner. Upon
examination, if he is found otherwise entitled to pension under the law, by
accepting the qualifying service as concluded hereinabove, the pension papers
in respect of the petitioner be processed and the claim of the petitioner for
pension be brought to its logical end and it shall not be rejected for the
Page No.# 4/4
conclusion arrived hereinabove.
5. The above requirement be done within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order(s).
6. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
