Disposed

Binapani Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/4281/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding family pension, the Gauhati High Court directed the appropriate authorities to consider a representation seeking condonation of deficiency in qualifying service rule and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Competent authorities directed to consider petitioner's representation for condonation of deficiency and pass orders within three months.

Binapani Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010014202014

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4281/2014

¶5

1:BINAPANI RAY

¶6

W/O- LT. BIPIN CHANDRA RAY, R/O VILL.- DEOHATI PT.- I, P.O. and P.S.ABHAYAPURI, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION HIGHER DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY.-19.

¶11

3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AandE ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY.-29.

¶12

4:THE TREASURY OFFICER ABHAYAPURI SUB-TREASURY DIST.-BONGAIGAON ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE PRINCIPAL ABHAYAPURI COLLEGE ABHAYAPUR DIST.-BONGAIGAON ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.C DAS

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 01-08-2019

¶20

Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. R. K. Talukder, learned Standing Counsel, AG.

¶21

This matter pertains to deficiency in qualifying service for the purpose of grant of family pension.

¶22

According to the petitioner, the deceased employee was the husband of the petitioner and was serving on regular basis for a period of 4 years 2 months. According to the petitioner, he had rendered about 24 years of service. That means, he was serving more than 18 years before his service was regularized. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner’s husband had rendered service for about 24 years altogether, the petitioner has made a claim for grant of pensionary benefits.

¶23

On the other hand, the stand of the State Government is that, even if, the petitioner might have rendered long period of service, what is relevant is the length of regular service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.

¶24

However, it has been submitted at the Bar that there is a provision under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which endows the Governor of the State the power to condone any deficiency in attaining the qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension/family pension.

¶25

In this regard, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the Governor through proper channel for condoning the said deficiencies by submitting representation on 12.11.2018.

¶26

In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate authorities will

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as regards condoning the said deficiency for the purpose of grant of family pension, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken by the competent authority, he would be at liberty to approach this Court again.

¶30

With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Binapani Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binapani Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatindra Chandra Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nurul Islam Bhuyan Vs Pritam Saikia

M/S. Hind Steel Industry Vs the Union of India

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shyamal Kumar Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajdeep Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.