Allowed

Mst Sajiran Nessa v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2021WP(C)/1249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's husband's initial 6 years of service as a Muster Roll employee must be included in calculating his pension eligibility based on the criteria of judgment WP(C) 1121/2019. The Court further applied the Rafiq Masih judgment to direct the recovery of excess pay from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refund Rs.28,081/- and grant pension within 3 months.

Mst Sajiran Nessa Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010031502021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1249/2021

¶5

MST SAJIRAN NESSA

¶6

W/O LATE HAJARAT ALI, VILL. AND P.O. KHANGRA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶10

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSSAM

¶11

FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶13

IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3

¶14

5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29

¶17

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶18

BARPETA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) SORBHOG P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781317

¶19

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER

¶20

BARPETA TREASURY BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 78130

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

05.03.2021

¶26

Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s deceased husband was appointed as a Muster Roll worker in the Irrigation Department under Barpeta Division (Irrigation), Sorbhog on 01.08.1989. The service of the petitioner’s husband was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 vide order dated 06.10.2005. The petitioner’s husband retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was denied payment of pension on the ground that her husband did not have 20 years of service as a Muster Roll employee, after deducting the initial 6 years of his service as a Muster Roll employee. He submits that there can be no deduction of the initial 6 years of service as a Muster Roll Employee, as held by this Court in its judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed in WP(C) 1121/2019.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

The petitioner’s counsel also submits that Rs.28,081/- had been deducted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner, on account of excess drawal due to wrong fixation of pay made by the respondents. He submits that as the petitioner’s husband was a Grade-IV employee, there could not have been any recovery of the excess pay given, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶29

The counsels for the respondents fairly submit that the petitioner’s case is a covered case and that the petitioner’s husband’s entire service period as a Muster Roll employee would have to be considered for grant of pension to the petitioner. They also submit that there could not be recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner’s husband, due to wrong fixation made by the respondents.

¶30

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

¶31

As the present case is covered by the order dated 22.02.2019 passed in WP(C) 1121/2019, the respondent authority will have to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner’s husband as a Muster Roll worker and there can be no deduction of the initial period of 6 years of the petitioner’s husband’s service as a Muster Roll employee. Consequently, if the petitioner’s husband had worked continuously for 20 years, counting the period of the petitioner’s husband’s Muster Roll service prior to his regularization and his service after regularization, the petitioner will have to be given his pension. Further, as the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)has held that there can be no recovery of excess pay made in respect of Grade-III and Grade-IV employees, the recovery of money from the petitioner’s husband is not sustainable. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.28,081/- to the petitioner and grant pension to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Mst Sajiran Nessa v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mst Sajiran Nessa 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

Anita Sinha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajib Bura Gohain Vs the Honourable Gauhati High Court and 2 Ors.

Dinesh Barman Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Mrinal Pathak Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jyotirmoy Das Boro Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Tina Deka Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.