Allowed

Suleman Hassa v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Dec 2021WP(C)/4026/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of a writ petition seeking post-retirement benefits for the petitioner's deceased father. Relying on precedent that pre-regularization service counts towards qualifying period, the Court directed that benefits and pension be granted due to the father attaining superannuating service length, vesting from his date of death.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner be granted all post-retirement benefits and pension for services rendered up to the date of the father's death, effective from the date of superannuation.

Suleman Hassa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010122852020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4026/2020

¶5

SULEMAN HASSA

¶6

S/O- LT. JOHAN HASSA, R/O- VILL- DENGAON CHRISTIAN GAON, P.O. DUARBAMUNI B.O., P.S. DOKMOKA, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782441

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶9

TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SPL. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06

¶11

3:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06

¶12

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU PIN- 782460

¶13

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DOKMOKA DIVISION DOKMOKA PIN-

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-2

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

03.12.2021

¶21

Heard Ms. BR Brahma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R Dhar, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 and 5; Ms. A Talukdar, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent no. 2; Shri P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. I have also heard Shri J Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 as well as Shri RK Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6-Accountant General, Assam.

¶22

Considering the subject matter and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶23

At the outset, it is jointly submitted that the issue involved has already been adjudicated in a number of writ petitions, including WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 805] whereby this Court has held that while calculating the 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of being eligible for post retirement benefits for a Muster Roll / Work Charged Worker, whose services were subsequently regularized, there should not be any deduction for the period served prior to such regularization.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working with the Public Works Department and has rendered service of 21 years 10 months 30 days whereafter he had retired on 31.05.2007. Subsequently, on 13.09.2019, the father of the petitioner had passed away. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except terminal

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

gratuity, no other post retirement benefits, including pension have been released on the ground of non-fulfillment of 20 years of qualifying service. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

As observed above, this Court has already held in similar cases that while calculating the 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of being eligible for post retirement benefits for a Muster Roll / Work Charged Worker, whose services were subsequently regularized, there should not be any deduction for the period served prior to such regularization. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 26.02.2021 has further explained that the benefits would be from the date of their superannuation and not from the judgment as this was issue in another connected case namely WA 18/2021 [Binapani Das vs. State of Assam & Ors.] .

¶28

Considering the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing that the benefits granted to the petitioners in the bunch of cases including WP(C)/1089/2015 vide the judgment dated 04.12.2018 is also granted to the petitioner. The benefit is to be given from the date of attaining superannuation as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶29

The petitioner would accordingly be entitled to all post retirement benefits for the services rendered by his father till 13.09.2019 i.e., the date of the death of the father of the petitioner.

¶30

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Suleman Hassa v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suleman Hassa v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Sumita Kumari Sharma Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dipumoni Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Urmila Tanti @ Urmila Sing Tanti Vs the State of Assam

M/S Wipro Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Manik Patra Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ranjuman Ara Begum Vs Rathindra Bhuyan and 2 Ors.