Petitioner sought family pension for her deceased husband, a work charge employee in Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. Court held that work charge employees appointed after the relevant cut-off date cannot avail pensionary benefits as they do not hold substantive posts, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010286812019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8656/2019
1:MANJU CHETRY @ MANJU BISTA
W/O- LT PRADEEP KUMAR BISTA @ PRODIP KUMAR BISTA, R/O- VILLUMPANAI, P.O. UMPANAI, P.S. BAITHALANGSO, PIN- 782413, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG WEST, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS), DISPUR, GHY-6, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) CHANDMARI GHY-3 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) UMPANAI DIVISION ULUKUNCHI P.O. UMPANAI DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782413
4:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) UMWANG SUB-DIVISION ULUKUNCHI P.O. DIST- KARBI ANGLONG
Page No.# 2/5
ASSAM PIN- 782413 5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG P.O. DIPHU PIN- 782460 ASSAM 6:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA P.O. BELTOLA GHY- 29 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 8:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P W D
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
Page No.# 3/5
ORDER
Date : 11-02-2020
Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, Mr. A. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel, AG (A & E), Assam for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No. 8.
Petitioner’s husband namely, late Pradeep Kumar Bista @ Prodip Kumar Bista @ Prodip Bista was serving as a Rollar Handyman in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi in the district of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. He died on 24.03.2014 leaving behind his widow i.e. the petitioner, one minor daughter aged about 16 years and one minor son aged about 14 years.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the family pension and all other admissible benefits as per the revised ROP Rules to her on the death of her husband, said Pradeep Kumar Bista.
The contention of the petitioner is that since February, 2001 her husband, Pradeep Kumar Bista, continuously served for almost 13 years and 2 months till his death on 24.03.2014 as Rollar Handyman in the said establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi and as such, such benefits should be granted to the petitioner on the death of her husband.
It is also stated by the petitioner that her husband was appointed as a Rollar Handyman against a regular post that fell vacant on the death of the concerned regular employee and that as per the provisions of the Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, declaration can be made to grant pension/ family pension to her by regularizing the qualifying service of petitioner’s husband as per said 1969 Rules.
Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner placed the Rules of the State so as to establish the case of the petitioner towards her entitlement to the pensionary benefits of her late husband, Pradeep Kumar Bista and also towards the claim of her family pension on his death.
Page No.# 4/5
From the Annexures appended to this writ petition, it is seen that the authority in the KAAC made the appointment of the husband of the petitioner as Roller Handyman in the PWD (Roads) Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi against a post that fell vacant due to the death of one Ram Basumatari (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Annexure-C to the writ petition relates to the Service Roll of Grade-IV Employee under the Government issued in terms of Form No. 16 of the Financial Rule 162 (b) which was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R), Umpanai Sub-Division, Umpanai without any date wherein the date of birth of the petitioner’s husband was shown as 31.03.1981. Annexure-C-1 to the writ petition; is the Identity Card of the petitioner’s husband showing him to be a Rollar Handyman in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi wherein his date of birth was shown as 26.12.1978 and his date of joining in service as 14.02.2001. Annexure-D to the writ petition annexed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner’s husband was only a Work Charge Handyman in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Division, Ulukunchi that borne the signature of the Assistant Executive Engineer of said Division.
The petitioner in her writ petition did not state as to when the service of her late husband was regularized as a Government employee.
On 27.11.2019, the Court directed the respondents in the KAAC to apprise the Court as to whether the service of the petitioner’s husband was a regular service or his service was temporary in nature in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi.
Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC placed the written instructions before the Court to show that the service of the petitioner’s husband was not regularized by the Government as he joined his service on 14.02.2001 as a Work Charge employee after the cut off date of 01.04.1993.
It is well settled that any such pensionary benefits including the family pension under the provision of said 1969 Rules, noted above, is entitled only by a Government Employee, who is appointed against a substantive post of the State by following the rules of recruitment and the provisions of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner’s husband served only as a Work Charge Rollar Handyman during his life time since 14.02.2001 and his service
Page No.# 5/5
was not regularized as his appointment as Work Charge employee was after the relevant cut off date of 14.02.2001 and that he was not a regular Government employee serving in any substantive post.
Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC has also placed before the Court that the petitioner had already been paid monthly salary and allowances and the GPF amount amounting to Rs. 58,159/- till July, 2014 of said Pradeep Kumar Bista, the concerned deceased Work Charge employee.
Considering the above, the prayer of the petitioner for her family pension on the death of her husband, Pradeep Kumar Bista, cannot be entertained in law in exercise of writ jurisdiction as her said husband was not a regular Government employee and only a Work Charge employee, not serving in any substantive post of Government. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for her family pension on the death of her husband Pradeep Kumar Bista is not tenable in law.
For the reasons above, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a family pension claim is maintainable where the deceased was a work charge employee appointed after the relevant cut-off date and not a regular government employee.
MANJU CHETRY @ MANJU BISTA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
