Allowed

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

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2019WP(C)/7446/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Superannuating petitioners challenged denial of superannuation pension and death cum retirement gratuity due to alleged deduction of six years of initial engagement. The Court held the deduction impermissible and directed release of pensionary benefits within three months from the date of a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to calculate and release pensionary benefits within three months from the order dated 4.12.2018.

Pronoy Kumar Deb and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010237422019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 7446/2019

¶5

1:PRONOY KUMAR DEB AND ANR. S/O- LT JITENDRA KUMAR DEB, R/O- VILL- LAKHIPUR, P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788103

¶6

2: ALOK ADITYA S/O- LT ARABINDA ADITIYA R/O- VILL- SUBHAS NAGAR NETAJI ROAD H.NO. 53 P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78800

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. THROUGH THE SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY-36

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK 6TH FLOOR GHY-06

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

Page No.# 2/4

ASSAM MAIDAMGAON

BELTOLA GHY-29

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (PHE) CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR-I

¶16

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) SILCHAR SUB DIVISION NO. I

¶17

7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) SILCHAR SUB DIVISION NO. II LAKHIPUR SUB DIVISION PAILAPOOL LAKHIPUR CACHA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 01-10-2019

¶23

Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G.Baishya, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General(A & E), Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos and Mr. P. Nayak , learned Standing Counsel Finance Department.

¶24

The petitioner No.1 was engaged as Muster Roll Worker under the office of the

¶25

Executive Engineer(PHE) Silchar Sub-Division No. II Lakhipur Sub-Division Pailapool on 2.2.1993 and the petitioner No.2 was engaged as Muster Roll Worker under the office of the

¶26

Executive Engineer(PHE) Silchar Sub-Division No. 1 on 9.3.1993. The service of the

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

petitioners were regularized as Khalasi w.e.f. 22.7.2005 and was allowed regular scale of pay. After rendering continuous service the petitioner No.1 retired from service on 31.7.2017 and petitioner No.2 retired on 28.2.2017, on attaining the age of superannuation. The office of the Accountant General(A&E), Assam sanctioned only terminal gratuity of Rs. 2,21,418/- to the petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 16.8.2018 and vide letter dated 1.12.2017 sanctioned terminal gratuity of Rs.2,06,938/- to the petitioner No.2. 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.

¶29

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 petitioner No.1 and 2 from the date of their joining rendered 24 years 5 months 29 days and 23 years 11 months 19 days respectively qualifying service but the six years of initial engagement was deducted on the basis of the office memorandum dated 20.5.2005. 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.

¶30

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 petitioners would be entitled to the pensionary benefits as the petitioners have more than 20 years of service in their credit from the date of appointment.

¶31

Accordingly this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

calculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioners 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 petitioners the same may be adjusted at the time of finalization of the pension.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pronoy Kumar Deb and Anr. 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

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.

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