Sitananda Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3919 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010196692022




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/6494/2022

         SITANANDA GOGOI
         RETD. GAON PANCHAYAT SECRETARY UNDER GOLAGHAT ZILA
         PARISHAD, VILL. SUKIA PATHAR, P.O. SARUPATHAR, DIST. GOLAGHAT,
         ASSAM, PIN-785601.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

          TH GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

          THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         4:THE COMMISSIONER

          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
          ASSAM
          JURIPAR
          SIX MILE
          GUWAHATI-37.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4


            5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION

             ASSAM
             HOUSEFED COMPLEX
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI-06.

            6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

             GOLAGHAT ZILLA PARISHAD
             P.O. GOLAGHAT AND DIST. GOLAGHAT
             ASSAM
             PIN-785621.

            7:TREASURY OFFICER

             SARUPATHAR SUB-TREASURY
             P.O. SARUPATHAR
             DIST. GOLAGHAT
             ASSAM
             PIN-785601

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                       O R D E R

29.09.2022

Heard Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K Konwar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 4 and 6 being the authorities in the P&RD, Mr. D Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 5 being the authorities in the Pension Department and Mr. R Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 7 being the authorities in the Finance Department.

Page No.# 3/4

2. The petitioner was appointed in the service of a Gaon Panchayat on 01.02.1963 and retired from service as a Gaon Panchayat Secretary on 31.01.1999 under the Golaghat Zila Parishad. The total service rendered by the petitioner from 01.02.1963 up to 31.01.1999 would be approximately 36 years. But for the initial part of the service from 01.02.1963 up to the year 1975, the petitioner was paid a fixed salary and thereafter he was paid a scale salary. While evaluating the pension amount that the petitioner was entitled, the period of service for which he was paid the fixed salary was deducted and only the balance of the service for which he was paid the scale pay had been included towards the qualifying service.

3. The petitioner refers to a judgment of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in WP(C) No. 6840/2017 wherein in paragraph 8 thereof, it had been held that a Gaon Panchayat employee would be entitled to count the entire length of service for the purpose of pensionery benefits and in other words, it is the proposition laid down by this Court that the period, if any, where the employee may have been paid the fixed salary cannot be deducted from the qualifying service.

4. The judgment dated 12.12.2018 in WP(C) No. 6840/2017 had also been followed in the order dated 03.06.2019 in WP(C) No. 1686/2019 in a matter which was similarly circumstanced. In the order of 03.06.2019 in paragraph 5 thereof, it had been provided that the State respondents are directed to work the entitlement of pension and DCRG payable to the petitioner therein and if it is found that the petitioner therein was entitled to more than what he had been paid as pensionery benefit, the respondents shall issue a fresh order in supersession of the earlier orders of pension payment.

5. By following the order dated 03.06.2019 in WP(C) No. 1686/2019, in the Page No.# 4/4

instant case also we direct the respondent No. 4 being the Commissioner, P&RD, Government of Assam to examine the entitlement of the petitioner of pension and DCRG by taking note of the total qualifying service of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order thereon.

6. If the reasoned order provides that the petitioner would be entitled to a higher amount, the same be paid and the earlier order of payment of pension be modified. The requirement be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The reasoned order that may be passed by the Commissioner shall prevail over any other order that may be passed by any Department including the Pension Department and the Pension Department to carry forward and bring a logical end to such order that the Commissioner Panchayat may pass.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant