Gauhati High Court
WA/356/2023 on 22 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010148142023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/356/2023
1.LAL BIAKTHANGI RALTE ,
D/O PAHLA RALTE,
VILL-MAHUR GRADEN, P.O.-MAHUR,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788830.
2: BIDHAN CHANDRA MOHANTA,
VILL-NOON NAGAR, P.O.-KATIRAIL,
DIST-CACHAR, PIN-788804.
3: CHAWNGUL THIEK,
P.O.-HARANGAJAO, DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788818.
4: SWAPNA PAUL,
C/O SHYAMA SHILL,
P.O.-HAFLONG, DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788819.
5: SADHANA KAR,
C/O A.T. KAR,
P.O.-MAHUR BAZAR, DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM PIN-788830.
6: SAROJ KUMAR DEY,
SMASHAN ROAD, SILCHAR, MAA KALI LANE,
P.O.-AMBIKA PATTY DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788004.
7: BIJOY KRISHNA ROY,
VILL-DITTOCKCHERRA, P.O.-DITTOCKCHERRA,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788818.
8: SEIKHOHEN CHANGSAN,
W/O NEJALAM CHANGSAN,
VILL-SONGRILING HAFLONG,
P.O. AND P.S.-HAFLONG, DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM PIN-788819.
Page No.# 2/7
9: LALDAWNKIM HMAR,
W/O SIEHKHOKAM,
VILL-KHOMUNNOM, P.O.-MAHUR,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788830.
10: ON THE DEATH OF DIZEING JEME HIS WIDEO AND LEGAL HEIR SMT.
RAM SELUNGLE NEWME,
VILL-P. LONGKHAI, P.O.-MAHUR,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788830.
11: CHINTAMONI CHETRY,
W/O MINA KUMAR CHETRI,
VILL-UPPER BAGATER, P.O.-HAFLONG,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788819.
...... Appellants
-VERSUS-
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (N),
DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, HAFLONG.
3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,
EDUCATION (HILLS) ASSAM, HAFLONG.
4:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNT OFFICER (N),
DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, HAFLONG.
5:THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PENSION, ASSAM,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER,
DIMA HASAO AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, HAFLONG.
7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), ASSAM,
BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-29.
8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
...... Respondents
Page No.# 3/7
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. R. Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Mazumdar, Standing Counsel, Department of
School Education, Assam.
: Mr. S. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam.
: Mr. B. Sharma, Standing Counsel, AG.
: Mr. B. Chakravarty, Standing Counsel, AG.
: Mr. R.R. Kaushik, Standing Counsel, Education, Dima
Hasao.
: Mr. C. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao.
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.05.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
[Vijay Bishnoi, CJ]
This writ appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No.5409/2020 along with other connected writ petitions titled as
"Purnima Hore Vs. the State of Assam".
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were appointed as
Assistant Teachers in different Lower Primary Schools under Dima Hasao District
Page No.# 4/7
[erstwhile North Cachar Hills Autonomous District Council, Haflong]. Later on,
the services of the appellants were regularized. The appellants are claiming that
their services were regularized in between the year 2007 to 2013 i.e. admittedly
after 01.02.2005 from which date the New Defined Contribution Pension
Scheme (hereinafter referred as "New Pension Scheme") came into effect.
3. The learned Single has dealt with the claim of the appellants for
their entitlement of pensionary benefits under Assam Services (Pension) Rules,
1969 [hereinafter to be referred as "Rules of 1969"] and has rejected their claim
while holding that the appellants are not entitled for pensionary benefits under
the Rules of 1969.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023 in
relation to the teachers appointed in the 6 th Schedule area (Dima Hasao District
Council) is reproduced hereunder:-
"115. The cases of the teachers of the instant category are in WP(C)
No.5409/2020 and WP(C) No.5895/2021. In these two cases, this Court had
earlier reserved the judgment on 23.02.2023. However, in the meantime, an
additional affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the District Primary Education
Officer, Dima Hasao, Hallong on 15.03.2022. Taking into account the said
affidavit, this Court further heard these matters on 23.03.2023. Before dealing
with the facts involved, it would be relevant to take note of that in the 6th
Schedule Areas, more particularly in the Dima Hasao District Council, the said
District Council has two sets of employees working; one category of employees
is governed by the Service Rules of the North Cachar Hill Autonomous Council
(presently known as Dima Hasao Autonomous Council) where employees are
not entitled for pension and they are known as the Normal Sector Employees.
Their salaries are being paid from the revenue earned by the Autonomous
Council. The other category of employees are governed by the Assam State
Government Service Rules and they are entitled for pension and other service
benefits as declared by the State Government from time to time and they are
called District Cadre State Sector Employees. In respect to later category of
employees, their salaries are being paid by the State Government from the State
Exchequer. It is also a practice that when vacancy arises in the State Sector, the
Page No.# 5/7
employees working under the Normal Sector get an opportunity to apply for the
same and as per the requirement and the qualification of the candidates, they
are brought within the fold of the State Sector.
116. It is an admitted position that the petitioners in both the writ
petitions were first appointed as the Normal Sector Employees by the North
Cachar Hill Autonomous Council (as it was then existed). Subsequent thereto,
when the vacancies arose in the State Sector, the North Cachar Hill Autonomous
Council/Dima Hasao Autonomous Council allowed regularization of the LP
School teachers thereby brining in them within the fold of State Sector by
passing appropriate orders. A perusal of the writ petition in WP(C)
No.5409/2020 would show that on 25.10.2010 and on 28.06.2013, the
petitioners herein who were serving under non-sanctioned posts (Normal), their
services was regularized to the Government sanctioned posts (Non-Plan) caused
due to retirement/death of the incumbents. In WP(C) No.5895/2021, the service
of the petitioner herein was regularized under the Government sanctioned
vacancy due to retirement/death of the incumbent. The petitioners in both the
writ petitions, therefore, prior to the order dated 25.10.2010 and 28.06.2013
were admittedly not entitled to pension in terms with the Rules of 1969.
Although, in the order it has been mentioned that the services of the petitioners
were regularized, but in the true sense, the same cannot be said to be
regularization in view of the exposition of the term 'regularization' by the
Supreme Court in the case of District Bar Association, Bandipora (supra). In
fact, the petitioners were brought within the fold of the Government service on
the basis of the said order dated 25.10.2010 and 28.06.2013. Under such
circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim to be entitled to the pension in terms
with the Rules of 1969 in view of the mandate of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969
and Rule 2A of the said Rules. Under such circumstances, this Court does not
find any merit in the instant writ petitions for issuing a mandamus as sought
for.
117. Lastly, this Court would also take up one further contention so
raised by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The
contention being that the petitioners have rendered services for long period, and
as such, it would be unjust not to take into consideration of their past services
rendered and thereby not grant them the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme
under the Rules of 1969. This Court finds it apt to take note of the observation
of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v.
Surji Devi, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 310 wherein the Supreme Court
categorically observed that a sentiment and sympathy alone cannot be a
ground for taking a different view for what is permissible in law. Paragraph
Nos.16 & 17, being relevant, is quoted herein under:-
Page No.# 6/7
"16. The Scheme relating to grant of family pension was made under a
statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the
statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 2 vis-à-vis the Family Pension Scheme, it
would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any
family pension. The husband of the respondent was a work-charged
employee. His services had never been regularised. It may be unfortunate
that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit
of the regularisation scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be
a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. (See
Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal, State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra,
SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi and State of M.P. v.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak.)
17. The statutory provisions, as noticed hereinbefore, debar grant of family
pension in favour of the family members as the deceased employee was a
work-charged employee and not a permanent employee or temporary
employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charged
employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are
regularised and he becomes permanent and not otherwise."
Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that
merely because of the fact that the petitioners in the various categories of
teachers other than the Stipendiary Teachers have rendered services for long
time before entering the services of the Government that cannot entitle them to
the Old Pension Scheme regulated by the Rules of 1969."
5. Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the learned Single Judge has illegally rejected the claim of the appellants for
their entitlement of pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1969. It is contended
that the petitioners have rendered services for a long period and therefore, the
past services rendered by them entitle them for the benefits under the Rules of
1969.
However, the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to satisfy
this Court that the appellants as being Normal Sector Employees of the North
Page No.# 7/7
Cachar Hill Autonomous Council [now known as Dima Hasao Autonomous
Council] are entitled for pension scheme.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to counter the
observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the employees
governed by the service rules of North Cachar Hill Autonomous Council [now
Dima Hasao Autonomous Council] are not entitled to pension.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has simply stated that looking to
their long service career, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of pension
under the Rules of 1969.
8. It is to be noted that the contention of the appellants regarding their
entitlement on account of long period of their services rendered is specifically
dealt with by the learned Single Judge and the same has been rejected while
placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Surji Devi , reported in (2008) 2
SCC 310 and we find no illegality in the same.
Hence, no case for interference is made out. The writ appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
