Allowed

Narahari Ojha v. Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2019WP(C)/5512/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee suspended during a criminal case, sought payment of outstanding pensionary benefits. The Court directed the respondent to pay provisional pension as per Rule 69 of the CCP Rules, 1972, including arrears and current dues, within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay provisional pensionary benefits including arrears and current dues within six weeks.

Narahari Ojha Vs Assam Power Distribution… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010170312019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5512/2019

¶5

1:NARAHARI OJHA

¶6

RETD SBO-1, SWITCH BOARD OPERATOR, S/O- LATE GIRINDRA NATH OJHA, R/O- VILL- MEKUAKUCHI, P.S- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(D) APCL LAR, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GHY- 781001

¶9

2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN

¶10

3:THE GENERAL MANAGER BONGAIGAON ZONE APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN

¶11

4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL LAR BARPETA

¶12

5:THE ASSTT GENERAL MANAGER BARPETA ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL

Page No.# 2/3

LAR

BIJULEE BHAWA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. M TALUKDAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA ORDER

¶20

01.10. 2019

¶21

Heard Ms. V. B. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent APDCL.

¶22

The petitioner retired as Switch Board Operator-I under Barpeta Road Electrical SubDivision under the respondent APDCL. Due to Barpeta P.S. Case No. 688/2006 wherein he was arrested, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.10.2006, and, thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service and he superannuated on 30.04.2016. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has not received pensionary benefits as well as other allowances.

¶23

Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the APDCL submits that as per Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner is entitled for provisional pension till the disposal of the criminal case. It is the contention of Ms. Gohain that the petitioner though initially was paid provisional pension for six months but same was stopped and as such she sought for a direction to that effect for payment of the provisional pension. Considering the same and keeping in view the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, APDCL and intimation received from the Dy. General Manager (Law), APDCL, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-1 vide letter dated 05.09.2019 that the petitioner is entitled to provisional pension as per Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 leaving aside other benefits like DCRG till the disposal of the said criminal case. From the contention of the counsel, this writ petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents at this stage.

¶24

Accordingly, the respondent/APDCL is hereby directed to pay the provisional

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

pensionary benefits to the petitioner as per the Rules. The said payment of provisional pensionary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner (both arrear and current) within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Narahari Ojha v. Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narahari Ojha v. Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. 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

Pompi Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Tafazul Haque Vs Md. Badrul Islam and 6 Ors.

Samsul Haque Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anjana Borah and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Upen Phukan @ Upen Ch. Phukan Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Pronoy Kumar Deb and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.