Allowed

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

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2019WP(C)/7438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired state employee, sought pensionary benefits denied due to calculation of qualifying service under May 2005 guidelines. Court held an earlier judgment nullifying such six-year deductions and directed respondents to grant benefits from the date of said prior order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to calculate and release pensionary benefits within three months, effective from April 12, 2018. Terminal benefits to be adjusted at finalization.

Upen Phukan @ Upen Ch. Phukan Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010240992019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 7438/2019

¶5

1:UPEN PHUKAN @ UPEN CH. PHUKAN S/O- LATE NARAYAN CH PHUKAN, VILL- SOLAGAON, P.O.- PANIGAON, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787052.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM, TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6.

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE ASSAM GUWAHATI-22.

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29.

¶12

5:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE DHEMAJI DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SERICULTURE DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057.

¶15

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER LAKHIMPUR TREASURY DIST.- LAKHIMPUR (ASSAM) PIN- 787001

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 01-10-2019

¶21

Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.Baishya, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General(A & E), Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos. 1,3,5 and 6 and Mr. P. Nayak , learned Standing Counsel Finance Department.

¶22

The petitioner was serving as a Muster Roll worker in the Station Village Grazzing Reserve, Gogamukh since 1.9.1992 under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Sericulture, Dhemaji, respondent No.6. Thereafter his post was regularized w.e.f. 22.7.2005 and was allowed regular scale of pay. After rendering continuous service he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2017. The office of the Accountant General(A&E), Assam sanctioned only terminal gratuity of Rs 91,224/-. But the other benefits like monthly superannuation pension and death cum retirement gratuity (DCRG) were not sanctioned on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of net qualifying service.

¶23

Considering the nature of this case this court is of the view that the present petition can be disposed of at the stage without issuing any formal notice to the respondents. The

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

petitioner from the date of his joining rendered 24 years 7 months 29 days qualifying service but the six years of initial engagement was deducted on the basis of the office memorandum dated 20.5.2005 resulting service of the petitioner is taken to be 18 years 7 months 29 days. Accordingly the office of the Accountant General, Assam only sanctioned the terminal gratuity . But impliedly refused to sanction the superannuation pension only on the ground that the 20 years service is not completed by the petitioner.

¶26

In WP(C) 1089/2015 decided on 4.12.2018, it was held that the said deduction of six years as impermissible by this court. The legal position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent authority. For the said reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to the pensionary benefits as the petitioner has more than 20 years of service in his credit from the date of appointment.

¶27

Accordingly this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to calculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and release the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that the pensionary benefit will be granted from the date of order dated 4.12.2018 as have been done in other similar cases. Any terminal benefits if granted to the petitioner the same may be adjusted at the finalization of the pension.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

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

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