Single judge order where Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, accepting joint submissions and citing precedent, disposed of the writ petition by directing the State to grant post-retirement benefits calculated from the date of superannuation.
Direction to grant post-retirement benefits calculated from the date of superannuation.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010147002021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4821/2021
MANIK PATRA
S/O LATE DUTIRAM PATRA, VILL. HOLONGAPARA GOHAIN GAON, P.O. KOPRADHORA, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785112
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
JORHAT DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
PIN 7785001
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
JORHAT TREASURY DIST. JORHAT (ASSAM) PIN 78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
03.12.2021
Heard Shri U Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5. Also heard Ms. A Talukdar, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent no. 2 whereas the respondent no. 4 is represented by Ms. M Barman, learned counsel.
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.
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, there should not be any deduction.
The petitioner was serving as a Muster Roll Worker under the Executive Engineer, Jorhat Division Irrigation, Jorhat. It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined the Department on 01.04.1990 and was regularized as Chowkidar w.e.f. 22.07.2005. On attaining the age of superannuation and after rendering his continuous service, the petitioner had retired on 31.10.2013. After such retirement, other than his terminal gratuity of Rs. 1,24,194/-, no other amount has been paid to him. The ground for such denial is noncompletion of 20 years of qualifying service.
Page No.# 3/3
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.] .
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.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-retirement benefits given the earlier holding on qualifying service calculation.
Whether the 20 years of qualifying service should include the period prior to regularization for a worker whose services were regularized later.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam and OthersFollowed¶27
Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam and Others, 2009 (2) GLT 805
Binapani Das vs. State of Assam & Ors.Referred¶30
Binapani Das vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Manik Patra
The State of Assam
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
