Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 1 August, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010139712024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3647/2024
PARASHMONI HAZARIKA AND ANR
W/O- PRADIP DEKA, R/O- VILL.- KOMARCHUBURI, ANIRUDHA PATH, P.O.
TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM
2: BINARANI DAS SAIKIA
W/O- LATE DULON CH. SAIKIA
R/O- VILL.- ERAGAON
BALIPARA
P.O. BALIPARA
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-781006.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-781006.
4:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GHY-781037.
Page No.# 2/5
5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-29.
6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GHY-781006.
7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SONITPUR ZILLA PARISHAD
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001.
8:THE TREASURY OFFICER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG,SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
01.08.2024
Heard Shri M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri P.
Handique, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department; Shri A. Chaliha,
learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department; Shri D. Bhattacharyya, learned
Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam and Shri D. Bora, learned State
Counsel.
Page No.# 3/5
2. The petitioners, who are two in numbers, have joined together in this writ
petition pertaining to a claim for release of their pension and other post
retirement benefits. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed
respectively as LDA on 06.12.1996 and Peon on 18.03.1996. The said
appointments have been contended to be made against the valid sanctioned
post. Vide an order dated 01.06.2013, 51 nos. of employees of the Department
were given the benefit of regularization of service which included the
petitioners. The petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2022 and 29.02.2020 respectively. The grievance of
the petitioners is that they have not been paid their pension and other post
retirement benefits. It is contended that the petitioners have been regularized
w.e.f., 01.06.2013 i.e. after 01.02.2005, their services fall under the New
Pension Scheme.
3. On this issue, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the
judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 passed in WP(C)/1517/2023 and
WP(C)/1903/2023 whereby directions were given for release of pension and
other post retirement benefits. It is submitted that the petitioners are similarly
placed with the petitioners in those two cases and therefore a similar order may
be passed. In this regard, the he has referred to the judgment which has been
annexed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition.
4. Shri Handique, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department has
submitted that though on principle he would not raise any issue on the
judgment rendered on 13.05.2024, he submits that a verification exercise be
allowed to ascertain the entitlement of the petitioners. The learned counsel for
the other respondents have also endorsed the said submission made on behalf
of the Department.
Page No.# 4/5
5. When the matter had come up for consideration on the earlier occasion
i.e. 24.07.2024, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Standing
Counsel of the Department to verify with regard to the submission as to
whether the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 would be
applicable.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into
consideration the submission made on behalf of the Department, this Court has
noticed that the aforesaid two writ petitions which were disposed of vide a
judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 contains the following observations and
directions-
"19. The law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court is
that services rendered by any employee prior to their regularization
should be counted towards their pensionary benefits if there is any
shortfall in their services rendered after being regularized. Under
such circumstances, when there is no dispute that the petitioners
have rendered services in ad-hoc capacity continuously against valid
sanctioned posts without any break in service and they came to be
subsequently regularized by the Government and at the time of their
superannuation, the employees did not have qualifying services from
the date of their regularizations, then in the opinion of this Court
and as has been held by several decisions as discussed above, the
period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity against valid
sanctioned posts can also be counted for the purposes of satisfying
the qualifying period of service prescribed under Rule 31 of the
Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969.
20. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith the
Page No.# 5/5
process the pension papers and forward them to the competent
authority by considering the balance period of service required to
W.P(C) No. 1517/2023 & W.P.(C) No. 1903/2023 satisfy the
qualifying period of service under the pension Rules from the
services rendered earlier in their ad-hoc capacity against the vacant
sanctioned posts.
21. The respondent authorities will thereafter release the pensions
and the other retiral benefits to the writ petitioners as expeditiously
as possible within the outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
7. The facts projected being similar to the facts in those two cases, this Court
directs that the observations and directions made in the judgment and order
dated 13.05.2024 would also be applicable to the present petitioners. The
authorities are however given the liberty to verify on the factual aspect and
thereafter take action in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
