Allowed

Chand Mahammad Ali v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2019WP(C)/2617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding pensionary benefits. Relying on a prior decision, the court held that the entire service period of a regularized Muster Roll Worker must be counted. The petitioner was directed to compute benefits based on his full service from 1990.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be granted pension based on entire service from 02.02.1990 within three months; grant from 04.12.2018.

Chand Mahammad Ali Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010076452019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2617/2019

¶5

1:CHAND MAHAMMAD ALI S/O- LT. SONA SAH SHEIKH, R/O- VILL. RAJA BAZAR, SAIKIAPARA, P.O.KALITAKUCHI, P.S. HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN- 781102.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PHE DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶9

2:THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT. DISPUR ASSAM GHY.-06.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY.-36.

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E ) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON GHY.-29.

¶12

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) GUWAHATI DIVISION NO. 1 GUWAHATI

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

DIST. KAMRUP(R) (ASSAM) PIN- 781021.

¶15

6:THE TREASURY OFFICER NEW GUWAHATI TREASURY AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP(R) (ASSAM) PIN- 781021

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 03-06-2019

¶22

Heard Mr. K.R. Patagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. G. Baishya, learned Standing Counsel for the A.G., Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the PHE and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

¶23

It has been fairly submitted at the bar that the present petition is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015 and others wherein this Court had held that at the time of computation of the qualifying period for grant of pension, it is no more permissible for the State to deduct any period of service rendered by any Muster Roll worker, whose service is subsequently regularized.

¶24

It has been clarified in that aforesaid decision that once a Muster Roll Worker has been regularized in service, the entire period of service rendered by such Muster Roll Worker, will be counted from the initial date of appointment for the purpose of calculation of the qualifying service for grant of pensinary benefits.

¶25

In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

02.02.1990 and his service was regularized vide order dated 22.07.2005 and he retired from service on 31.03.2015. Accordingly, the entire service rendered by the petitioner from initial date of appointment on 02.02.1990 upto 31.03.2015 will be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of the aforesaid decision of this Court.

¶28

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had rendered 25 years 01 month and 29 days of service.

¶29

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to workout the pensionary benefit of the petitioner by taking into account the entire period of length of service rendered by him as mentioned above, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If any terminal benefit had been granted to the petitioner, it may be adjusted at the time of finalization of the pension. The pensionary benefit will be granted from the date of 04.12.2018 i.e. the date of judgment as referred above.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Chand Mahammad Ali v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Mahammad Ali v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabir Roy Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Chandra Kanta Goala and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sashiprabha Devi Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Prabin Ch. Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Biswa Kamal Duarah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sarbeswar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.