Disposed

Hema Prava Dutta v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2022WP(C)/1928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the petitioner's husband's service should be confirmed and the requirement of qualifying service condoned under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, enabling the grant of family and arrear pension.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of service of the petitioner's husband; invocation of Rule 67 to condone service deficiency; payment of family pension and arrear pension.

Hema Prava Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 7… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010052272022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1928/2022

¶5

HEMA PRAVA DUTTA

¶6

W/O- LATE GOBIND CH. DUTTA @ LATE GOBIN CH. DUTTA, R/O- VILL.BARUWATIKA, DHAKUAKHANA (PART-1), DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787055.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006, DIST.KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM COOPERATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶11

3:THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM COOPERATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶12

4:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM COOPERATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

GUWAHATI-06 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 5:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KHANAPARA PIN- 781022 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 6:THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ADMN) ASSAM GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KHANAPARA PIN- 781022 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 8:THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S R GOGOI

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 3/5

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 07.06.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. S. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8.

¶22

The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner’s husband joined as Cadre Secretary of the Dhakuakhana Samabay Samity Limited on 17.02.1990.

¶23

The petitioner’s husband service was thereafter regularised on 22.09.1994. The petitioner’s husband retired on superannuation on 31.03.2009 as Junior Inspector cum Auditor and he expired on 03.12.2017.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.1983, the petitioner’s husband was to have twenty (20) years of qualifying service for grant of pension in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. However, as the petitioner’s husband had the qualifying service of only 19 years 01 month and 14 days, the petitioner was not granted family pension and arrear pension.

¶25

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the colleague of the petitioner’s husband, i.e. one Durga Pd. Borah, who had served for a period of 18 years 04 months 08 days had approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 2856/2019 and this Court had directed the respondent authorities to settle the pension and other benefits of Durga Pd. Borah, in view of the fact that the name of Durga Pd. Borah was reflected in the list attached to the Notification No. COOP.53/2003/pt/99 dated 05.01.2006, issued by the Commissioner Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Cooperation Department, Dispur and also due to the fact that the service of the said Durga Pd. Borah had been confirmed by the Govt.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s husband and Durga Pd. Borah were working in the same Department and that the petitioner had a longer tenure in the Department. However, only due to the fact that the petitioner’s service had not been confirmed, even though the petitioner’s husband’s name is also reflected in the list attached to the Notification dated 05.01.2006 mentioned above, at Serial No. 465, the petitioner cannot be denied payment of family pension and arrear pension.

¶28

Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 submits that as per instructions received by him, the payment of arrear pension and family pension will be given to the petitioner, as and when the confirmation of the service of the petitioner’s husband is received from the Govt.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsels for the parities.

¶30

The Notification dated 05.01.2006 states that the past service w.e.f. initial date of joining as Cadre Secretary can be counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits including DCRG etc. by invoking the provisions under Rule 131 (1) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The petitioner’s husband’s name is included in the list attached to Notification dated 05.01.2006 at Serial No.465.

¶31

The petitioner’s husband had a total service period of 19 years 01 month and 14 days as Cadre Secretary and Junior Inspector, while Durga Pd. Borah’s total length of service was 18 years four months 8 days. The name of Durga Prasad Bora is also reflected at Serial No. 506 of the list attached to the Notification dated 05.01.2006. While the service of Durga Pd. Borah had been confirmed, the service of the petitioner’s husband has not been confirmed till date by the State Govt.

¶32

On considering the fact that the petitioner’s husband had a longer period of service than Durga Pd. Borah, this Court does not find any reason, as to why the service of the petitioner’s husband should not be confirmed, as had been done in case of Durga Pd. Borah.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

Further, this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 passed in WP (C) No. 2856/2019 had directed the respondents to pay pension to the Durga Pd. Borah in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶35

In view of the above reasons, the respondents, especially the respondent no. 1 are directed to pass necessary orders for confirmation of the service of the petitioner’s husband within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

The above being said, the respondents should keep in mind Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which provides that upon such conditions as the Governor may deem fit, he may condone the deficiency not exceeding twelve (12) months in the qualifying service of an Officer. In the present case, as the petitioner’s husband is short of the qualifying service of twenty (20) years by less than eleven (11) months, the respondents are directed to invoke Rule 67, for the purpose of condoning the petitioner’s husband deficiency of service, so that the petitioner’s husband service can reach the bench mark of the required twenty (20) years. The said exercise should also be conducted and concluded within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner should be given family pension and arrear pension in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶37

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Hema Prava Dutta v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hema Prava Dutta v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Bipul Roy Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dipjyoti Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Motior Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Baby Das (Roy) Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dipankar Dutta Lahkar Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Utpal Kumar Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.