Gauhati High Court
Urbashi Nath vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 19 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010101322023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2696/2023
URBASHI NATH
W/O- LATE SANDHI RAM NATH @ SANDHIRAM NATH,
R/O- VILLAGE SAKIAPAR,
P.O- CHAMATIAPAR,
DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784147
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORK (ROADS) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD ROADS
2ND BLOCK-B
KRISHNA NAGAR
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E) MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/5
MANGALDAI RURAL ROAD DIVISION
PWD
MANGALDAI
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784125
6:THE ASSTT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SIPAJHAR RURAL ROAD SUB-DIVISION
PWD
SIPAJHAR
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784145
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
MANGALDAI
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78412
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 19.05.2023
Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6, Mr. Rupak Dhar, the learned counsel appears
for the respondent No.4, Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appears for
the respondent No. 7 and Ms. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel appears for
the respondent No. 2.
2. The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the husband of petitioner
was initially appointed as a Muster Roll Worker under the Office of the
Assistant Executive Engineer, Sipajhar Rural Road Sub-Division, PWD in the
district of Darrang, Assam. The husband of the petitioner joined his service
on 12/7/1992. On 30/9/2005 the service of the petitioner was regularised
w.e.f. 22/7/2005. Thereupon the husband of the petitioner retired upon
attaining the age of superannuation on 31/1/2017. It is the case of the
petitioner that the total period of service of the husband of the petitioner
was 24 years 6 months 19 days. However, on the basis of an Office
Memorandum dated 20/5/2009, 6 years was deducted for which the
husband of the petitioner did not have 20 years of qualifying service.
Accordingly, the husband of the petitioner was only given terminal gratuity.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Office
Memorandum on the basis of which 6 years have been deducted had
already been held to be illegal and arbitrary by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy and Ors. Vs. State of Assam
reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805. It is therefore the case of the petitioner
that if 6 years is not deducted, the petitioner would be entitled to the
arrear of the pension which her husband would have received as well as
also the family pension.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. From a perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is apparent that
the service of the husband of the petitioner alongwith other employees
were regularised w.e.f. 22/7/2005. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the
Page No.# 4/5
communication issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD whereby the
husband of the petitioner was issued the superannuation notice intimating
him that he would retire on 31/1/2017.
7. Accordingly, as the husband of the petitioner was regularised in
service from 22/7/2005 and he rendered service till 31/1/2017, the
husband of the petitioner in view of Rule 31 of the Assam Service
(Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules of 1969') read with Rule 108(b)
of the said Rules of 1969 would be entitled to pension. The judgment of
the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) would be
applicable in respect to those cases coming within the ambit of the Office
Memorandum dated 6/9/2003. Under such circumstances, the action of the
respondent authorities in not granting pension to the husband of the
petitioner as well as also the family pension to the petitioner would be
contrary to the Rules of 1969.
8. However, as this Court is disposing off this writ petition at the motion
stage, this Court finds it relevant to give the authority concerned an
opportunity to make necessary verification as regards the order of
regularisation/the order of superannuation of the husband of the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this Court disposes off the instant writ petition directing
the respondents in the PWD Department as well as the Office of the
Accountant General (A & E) to make necessary verification as regards the
authenticity of the order of regularisation of the husband of the petitioner
as well as the notice of superannuation so issued to the husband of the
Page No.# 5/5
petitioner and upon such verification, if it is found that the husband of the
petitioner had the qualifying service in terms with Rule 108(b) of the Rules
of 1969, the petitioner be paid the arrear pension alongwith the
pensionary benefits to which the husband of the petitioner would have
been entitled to as well as also the arrear family pension and the regular
family pension to the petitioner. In doing so, the Respondent Authorities
shall deduct the amount paid to the petitioner as terminal gratuity.
10. The said exercise be completed within a period of 4 (four) months
from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the
respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
