Partly allowed

Ananda Gohain v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2022Review.Pet./114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition sought to strike out a clause limiting the petitioner's pension payment from 04.12.2018 based on a subsequent Division Bench judgment finding the original order retrospective. The court accepted the submission and amended the order.

What did the court decide?

Striked out the sentence stating pension would be payable w.e.f. 04.12.2018 from the order in WP(C) 731/2021.

Ananda Gohain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010129982021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./114/2021

¶5

ANANDA GOHAIN

¶6

S/O- LATE PUNYA GOHAIN, R/O- BORBAM GOHAINGAON, P.O. MACHKHOWA, P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M.I.) IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03.

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (M.I.) AND NODAL OFFICER PENSION CASE IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03.

¶13

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHEMAJI DIVISION IRRIGATION DHEMAJI-787057.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29.

¶16

7:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTANT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND G) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A B T HAQUE

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

11.03.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. A.B.T. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the direction passed in the order dated 10.02.2021 in WP(C) 731/2021 should be reviewed, by striking out of the sentence namely, “The pension will be payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.12.2018.

¶23

2. The review petitioner’s counsel submits that this Court in WP(C) No.731/2021 had held that the petitioner, who was a regularized Muster Roll Worker, should be granted pension by counting his entire service period as a Muster Roll Worker in terms of the judgment dated 04.12.2018 of this Court in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895. This Court had then directed that “The pension will be payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.12.2018”.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

3. The review petitioner’s counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals, the lead case being Binapani Das vs. The State of Assam & 12 Others (WA 18/2021), has held in it’s order dated 26.02.2021, that putting a condition on the benefit of pension in the order in Sanjita Roy (supra) to be effective only from 04.12.2018 is not correct, when there was no such embargo in the order dated 04.12.2018. The Division Bench thus held that the order dated 04.12.2018 for giving of pension in Sanjita Roy (supra) was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated Muster Roll workers, irrespective of their dates of retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier. The review petitioner’s counsel thus prays that review petition should be allowed.

¶26

4. Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 & 7 submit that they have got no objection to the prayer made by the counsel for the review petitioner, in view of the order dated 26.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra).

¶27

5. This Court in the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in WP(C) 731/2021, had directed the respondents to count the entire service period of the petitioner for grant of pension. However, the pension was to be payable w.e.f. 04.12.2018 in terms of the judgment dated 04.12.2018 of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra). As submitted by the

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

learned counsel for the review petitioner, the effective date of payment of pension only from 04.12.2018 is not correct as the date of retirement of individual regularized Muster Roll employees would be different. Further, the Division Bench judgment in Binapani Das (supra) has held that the order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) does not give the benefit of pension and family pension to the regularized Muster Roll employees from a prospective date and that the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature.

¶30

6. As the review petitioner has made out a case for review, the words “The pension will be payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.12.2018” is struck off from the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in WP(C) 731/2021.

¶31

7. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Ananda Gohain v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Gohain 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

Altaf Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Probudh Ch. Hazarika Vs Tate of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ambiya Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rajdeep Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hasina Begum and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.