Gauhati High Court
Bhogi Ram Bharali vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 23 October, 2024
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010277902023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7263/2023
BHOGI RAM BHARALI
S/O- LATE ANATH BHARALI,
VILLAGE- CECHAMUKH,
P.O.- KULHATI,
DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM,
PIN- 781104.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETRAY
THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
JURIPAR
SIX MILE
GUWAHATI- 37.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KAMRUP ZILLA PARISHAD
PO- AMINGAON
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 783031.
7:TREASURY OFFICER
KAMRUP TREASURY
PO-AMINGAON
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781031
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
ORDER
Date : 23.10. 2024
Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.
Konwar, learned senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development
Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. D. Borah,
leaned State counsel appearing for the respondent No 1 as well as Mr. R.
Barpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Finance Department,
Government of Assam.
Page No.# 3/6
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the pension
payment order PPO No. ADP/ PRI/ PPO/ GPO/ 2014/001837 to the extent of
deduction of 15 years 2 months and 15 days out of the gross service period of
35 years, 3 months and 10 days. The petitioner further prayed for payment of
full pension and other retiral benefits.
3. The petitioner has rendered 35 years, 3 months and 10 days of service in
the Panchayat and Rural Development Department (P&RD), Government of
Assam. He was appointed on 20.01.1961 as Tax Collector in the office of the
erstwhile Bahana Checha G.P. under Kamrup Zilla Parishad. The service of the
petitioner was provincialised with effect from 01.10.1991 and the petitioner has
retired on 30.04.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation from Manahkuchi-
Bahana-Hadala-Chechamukh Gaon Panchayat under Kamrup Zila Parishad.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
similarly situated employees from the Department of Panchayat and Rural
Development, Government of Assam have approached this Court for payment of
pension and other retirement benefits of the employees of P&RD Department,
which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 4597/2002 (Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi Vs.
State of Assam & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment
and order dated 13.05.2004, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for
payment of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner was allowed.
5. The said judgment and order dated 13.05.2004, passed in W.P.(C) No.
Page No.# 4/6
4597/2002 (Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) was put to
challenge in the Writ Appeal No. 145/2009 preferred by the State of Assam.
Similar writ petitions were also filed before this Court claiming similar relief. The
above writ appeal and connected writ petitions were disposed of by a judgment
and order dated 24.03.2010 by upholding the claims of the petitioners in the
writ petitions regarding pension and other retirement benefits.
6. Against the said judgment and order 24.03.2010, passed in Writ Appeal
No. 145/2009, Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No(s.) 19351-19360/2010
was preferred by the State of Assam, however, the said SLPs were dismissed on
02.08.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. The Division Bench in the case of Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra), has held
that the benefit of provisions of Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialiastion)
Act, 1999 including those for pension and other retirement dues would be
available to the provincialized employees in service on or after 01.10.1991 on
the basis of the length of their services reckoned from the dates of their initial
appointment. It was further held that the provision of the pension rules
applicable to the State Government would apply subject to above. Vis-à-vis the
provincialised employees who have in service on or after 01.10.1991, the
benefit in terms of the Act as well as contemplated pension rules would be
available to those employees thereunder.
8. Pursuant to the above judgment of the Division Bench, the Govt. of Assam
issued a Notification No. PPG(P). 116/2010/28 dated 17 th March, 2011 in which
Page No.# 5/6
it has been mentioned that the benefit of the provision of Assam Panchayat
Employees ( Provincialiation) Act, 1999 for payment of pension and other
retirement benefits applicable to the State Government employees would be
applicable to the provicialised panchayat employees who were in service on or
after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the
date (s) of their initial appointments in the service of Panchayat.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly
situated persons have been given such benefits and the above judgment
squarely covered the case of the petitioner.
10. It is noticed that in a similar writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No.
6840/2017, the coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the claim of the
petitioner therein by holding that the case of Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra) is
squarely covered the case of the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State
counsels have fairly submitted that the relief claimed in this writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 24.03.2010, passed in Writ
Appeal No. 145/2009 and the other connected writ petitions, whereby the claim
of the employees of the P&RD Department, Government of Assam have been
allowed.
12. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on 20.01.1961 as the Tax
Collector in the office of the erstwhile Bahana Checha G.P. under Kamrup Zila
Parishad and he had retired on 30.04.1996 on attaining the age of
Page No.# 6/6
superannuation from Manakuchi Bahana Hadala Chechamuk GP under Kamrup
Zila Parishad after service of the petitioner was provincialised with effect from
01.10.1991. The petitioner has rendered for about 35 years 3 months and 10
days in the Department of P&RD as Tax Collector.
13. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the judgment and order dated 24.03.2010, passed in Writ
Appeal No. 145/2009 and the other connected writ petitions in the case of State
of Assam & Ors. Vs. Sayed Md. Fazlay Rabbi, I am of the view that the case of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Sayed
Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra). Thus, the entire length of service of the petitioner
with effect from 20.01.1961 to 30.04.1996 is entitled to be counted for the
purpose of granting pension and other retiral benefits .
14. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to issue a fresh
pension order in supersession of the earlier pension payment order within a
period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.
15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
