Disposed

Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought family pension after her husband's death. Court directed authorities to verify his total service length without deductions under Sanjita Roy. Ordered payment of pension plus arrears if 20 years service is confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to verify service and pay family pension with arrears within 3 months if husband completed 20 years of total service.

Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010002362022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/114/2022

¶5

SMTI. DURGESWARI GOGOI W/O LATE LAMBO GOGOI, R/O VILL- BAHU PATHER, P.O.-BHOLAGURI, P.S.-DERGAON, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785611

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR SERICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDMAGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SERICULTURE GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

6:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM) PIN-785621

¶14

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER GOLAGHAT TREASURY GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM) PIN-78562

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 04-03-2022

¶20

Heard Ms. U. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s husband was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the respondent No. 6 on 01.01.1976.

¶21

2. The service of the petitioner’s husband was regularized vide Order dated 05.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on 31.01.2009 and expired on 06.02.2011. Though the petitioner’s husband submitted his pension papers, the same was not processed on the ground that the petitioner’s husband had not completed 20 (twenty) years of service as a Muster Roll worker, after deducting the initial 6 (six) years of service.

¶22

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the present case is a covered matter in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in Sanjita Roy & Others Vs. State

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

of Assam & Others, 2019 (2) GLT 805. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as per the judgment of Sanjita Roy (Supra), the entire service period of the petitioner’s husband as a Muster Roll worker would have to be verified to see whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 (twenty) years of service. He submits that if the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 (twenty) years of service without deduction of 6 (six) years of service, the petitioner would have to be granted family pension alongwith arrear pension payable to the petitioner’s husband.

¶25

4. Mr. R. Dar, learned counsel for the Handloom Textile and Sericulture Department and Ms. A. Lala, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 fairly submit that the present case is covered by the judgment passed in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra). They however add that the State respondents will have to verify whether the petitioner’s husband service was regularized.

¶26

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶27

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and keeping in view the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy (Supra), the respondent authorities are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner’s husband as a Muster Roll worker without any deduction of his service period as a Muster Roll worker. The respondents will also have to verify whether the petitioner’s husband service was regularized. If it is found that the petitioner’s husband service was regularized and he had served for 20 (twenty) years as a Muster Roll worker, which would include both his period of service prior to regularization and after regularization, the petitioner would have to be paid family pension alongwith the arrear pension

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

payable to the petitioner’s husband. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from the family pension/pension payable to the petitioner.

¶30

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi 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

Idrish Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Adhir Chandra Roy and 15 Ors. Vs the Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors.

Himani Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smt. Ambika Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ratul Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Radha Ranjan Bowri Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.