Gauhati High Court
Reena Pegu Doley vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 12 January, 2024
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010259132023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6663/2023
REENA PEGU DOLEY
W/O- LATE ARUN KUMAR DOLEY,
VILLAGE- NAHAR GAZERA,
P.O.- JONKARENG, DISTRICT- DHEMAJI,
ASSAM, PIN- 787061.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
PUNJABARI
GUWAHATI- 37.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DHEMAJI ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O. AND DISTRICT- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057.
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
DHEMAJI TREASURY
PO AND DISTRICT- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
12.01.2024
Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta,
learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department, Assam appearing for the
respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance
Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 7.
2. The husband of the petitioner, who was serving as Secretary under the
Golaghat Zilla Parishad, died in harness on 04.12.2012. According to the
petitioner, the date of initial appointment of her deceased husband was
18.04.1994 and therefore, as on the date of his death, the husband of the
petitioner had completed more than 18 years of continuous service. As such, he
Page No.# 3/4
was entitled to receive pension. Consequently, upon the death of her husband,
she is also entitled to receive family pension. However, in view of the Circular
dated 28.03.2018 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, pension has been
denied to the petitioner's husband on the ground that as provided in the
circular, the ex post facto creation of 1272 post of GP Secretaries for the period
from 30.05.2003 to 03.02.2006 would not be treated for the purpose of enabling
the persons to receive pension. In other words, the stand of the department is
that for period from 30.05.2003 to 03.02.2006 the ex-post facto
approval/creation of the post of GP Secretaries would not carry any pension
and thereafter, since the NPS Scheme has been implemented in the year 2005,
the employees such as the petitioner's husband would not be entitled to
receive pension.
3. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid
issue has been settled by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 passed by
the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.133/2023 affirming the judgment
and order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.4397/2022 granted relief to similarly situated aggrieved person.
4. I have perused the judgment dated 05.08.2023 and find that the issue
raised before the Division Bench was also one and the same as involved in the
present proceeding. The writ appeal was eventually disposed of by the Division
Bench with the following conclusions and observations :-
"VII. Conclusion:
A. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this court cannot but
held that the offending portion of the order dated 28.03.2018 issued by
the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, P&RD i.e. "the ex-post-facto
Page No.# 4/4
creation of posts shall not be treated for the purpose of enabling the
person concerned to receive pension and other retiral benefits," is
perverse and not legally sustainable and therefore, liable to be struck
down, which is accordingly done.
B. In view of the aforesaid decision, discussion and reason, this court
dismisses the present writ appeal being devoid of any merit and
resultantly uphold the impugned decision dated 05.08.2022 rendered by
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4397/2022. Parties to bear their
own costs."
5. Mr. Dutta, learned departmental counsel submits that the State is
contemplating to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgment dated
05.08.2023 before the Supreme Court. The learned departmental counsel has,
however, admitted in his usual fairness that no such Special Leave Petition has
yet been instituted.
6. If that be so and considering the fact that the core issue involved in the
present writ petition is self-same as that raised in the aforesaid Writ Appeal, this
Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated
05.08.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.133/2023. The respondents shall initiated
consequential actions accordingly within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
