Partly allowed

Pramila Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/923/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks family pension for deceased husband, a regularized Muster Roll labourer. Relying on pre-determining judgments regarding gratuity and regularization, the Court directs the state to verify service length and pay pension if the twenty-year benchmark is met without deductions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to verify husband's service length without deduction and pay pension and family pension within 3 months.

Pramila Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010019072021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/923/2021

¶5

PRAMILA GOGOI

¶6

W/O LATE RAJEN GOGOI, R/O VILL. PANICHAKUA JORHAT, P.O. OANICHAKUA, P.S. PULIBOR, PIN 785616, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CONSERVATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶11

FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT.

¶13

R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI 781005

¶14

4:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶15

JORHAT SOIL CONSERVATION DIVISION JORHAT PIN 785001

¶16

5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 2

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

08.03.2021

¶23

Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s husband was initially engaged as a Casual Muster Roll labourer in the Office of the respondent no.4 on 01.10.1992. The service of the petitioner’s husband was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 vide office order dated 20.10.2005. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on 31.08.2014. The petitioner’s husband thereafter submitted an application for payment of pension and other service benefits. However, the petitioner’s husband unfortunately died on 12.07.2016 before any pension and other pensionary benefits could be given to the petitioner’s husband.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s husband rendered 21 years 3 months of service at the time of his retirement and in view of the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 of this Court in Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, [WP(C) 1089/2015], which held that the entire service period of a regularized Muster Roll employee, including the period of service prior to regularization had to be counted for the purpose of granting pension to the said person, the petitioner has to be given pension/family pension. He also submits that the judgment of Sanjita Roy (supra) was considered by the Division Bench in WA 18/2020 wherein it held that that the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated Muster Roll workers, irrespective of the dates of their retirement.

¶25

Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 submit that the petitioner’s case would have to be considered by determining petitioner’s husband’s entire length of service as a Muster Roll employee.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

In view of the submission made by the counsels for the parties and keeping in view of the judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed in WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others) and the order dated 26.02.2021 passed in WA 18/2021, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, for payment of pension and family pension, after verifying whether the service of the petitioner’s husband met the benchmark of 20 years, without any deduction of service period. Needless to add that all other pensionary benefits that may be payable to the petitioner shall be paid by the respondents. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the pension / family pension payable to the petitioner, if any. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Pramila Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Mrinal Pathak Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

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

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

Dilip Kumar Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Binanda Mozinder Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Prabhat Ch Das Vs Mukul Kumar Saikia and 3 Ors.