Allowed

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

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/1503/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authorities to calculate the petitioner's continuous length of service as a Muster Roll worker without deducting the initial six years. The court held that if this unadjusted service exceeds 20 years, the petitioner is entitled to a pension, with the previously paid terminal gratuity to be adjusted. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service as a Muster Roll worker without deducting the initial period; if it meets 20 years, grant pension and adjust terminal

Radha Ranjan Bowri Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010031912022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1503/2022

¶5

RADHA RANJAN BOWRI

¶6

S/O LATE NANDALAL BOWRI, KHALASI, RETIRED ON 30.11.2014 AS KHALASI, UNDER PHE DIVISION-II, SILCHAR, R/O VILL- HATIKURI TE AND P.O.-BINAKANDI TEI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788126

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, ASSAM CIVIL SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781036

¶11

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PHE BARAK VALLEY ZONE SILCHAR GUNGUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788014

¶12

4:THE SUPERIINTENDENT ENGINEER PHE CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING SILCHAR PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION-II SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-78102

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DUTTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 04-03-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the respondent no.5 w.e.f. 01.03.1993. The petitioner’s service was regularized vide order dated 31.10.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2014. The petitioner’s prayer for grant of pension was however rejected by the respondent no.6 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service after deducting the initial 6 years of service as a Muster Roll worker.

¶21

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the present case is a covered case and in terms of judgment passed in the case of Sanjita Roy and ors. Vs.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

State of Assam and ors., 2019 (2) GLT 805, the entire service period of the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker has to be verified/ counted, to see whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 years of service. He accordingly submits that if there is no deduction of 6 years of service from the petitioner’s entire service period as a Muster Roll worker, the petitioner would have completed more than 21 years of service. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued upon the respondent authorities to count the petitioner’s service without making any reduction of his initial years of service as a Muster Roll worker and if the petitioner crosses the benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pension.

¶24

Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submit that they have got no objection with the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner as the present case appears to be a covered matter.

¶25

In view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent authorities are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker, without deducting any period of his service as a Muster Roll worker. If such service period meets the benchmark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioner. The exercise should be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

from the pension payable to the petitioner.

¶29

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Ranjan Bowri 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

Statutes considered

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.

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

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

Ratul Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.