Allowed

Amitav Kumar Sarma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Jun 2022WP(C)/2470/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pension and regularization of suspension. Court held state could not initiate proceedings due to time-bar under pension rules. Ordered state to process pension, pensionary benefits, and regularize suspension with arrear salary within three months.

What did the court decide?

State directed to provide pension, pensionary benefits, and arrear salary within three months; suspension to be regularized.

Amitav Kumar Sarma Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010083262020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2470/2020

¶5

AMITAV KUMAR SARMA S/O. LT. PARIKSHIT SARMA, R/O. JOGENDRA CHOUDHURY ROAD, BAKHRAPARA PART II BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON-783380, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP BY COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶8

2:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶9

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36.

¶10

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES BONGAIGAON-783380

¶11

5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION & PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, GOVT. OF ASSAM, BELTOLA SURVEY, GUWAHATI-781028

¶12

6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), GOVT. OF ASSAM, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-781028

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D N SARMA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH AND F W

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

02.06.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. D.N. Sarma, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2.

¶20

On the oral prayer made by Mr. D.N. Sarma, the Director of Pension & Public Grievances, Government of Assam and the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam are impleaded as respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶21

Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.5 while Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.6. Extra copies of the writ petition be provided to Mr. C.S. Hazarika and Mr. A. Hassan within two days.

¶22

Registry to make necessary correction to the Cause Title.

¶23

The petitioner’s case is that he retired from service on 31.12.2019, while working as Health Educator under the Heath & Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was suspended for the period from 01.01.2016 to 20.03.2018. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has not been paid his regular pension and neither has his suspension period been regularized till

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

date. He also submits that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner till today and in terms of Rule 21(b)(ii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to “1969 Rules”, departmental proceeding cannot be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. In this regard, he submits that the respondents have not processed his regular pension due to his alleged involvement in the payment of excess dietary bill for the period March to December, 2014, as reflected in the letter dated 18.08.2020 issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam and addressed to the Joint Director of Health Services, Bongaigaon.

¶26

Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4 submits that though departmental proceeding was to be initiated against the petitioner in terms of letter dated 18.08.2020 issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. As such, in terms of “1969 Rules”, no departmental proceeding can now be initiated against the petitioner.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

In view of the fact that no further departmental proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner in respect of his alleged involvement in payment of excess dietary bill for the period March to December, 2014, in terms of “1969 Rules”, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would have to be given his pension and other pensionary benefits, after verification of the petitioner’s service record by the respondent

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

authorities and more particularly the respondent no.3. Further, as no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, the suspension period of the petitioner would have to be regularized and arrear salary for the same would also have to be provided to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The State respondents are accordingly directed to initiate the proposal for payment of pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner, along with payment of arrear salary, after verification of the petitioner’s service record. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondents.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Amitav Kumar Sarma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitav Kumar Sarma v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallika Karmakar Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Satabdi Borah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mamoni Pahadi @ Mamoni Pahadi Mili and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

B Krishna Rao Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sahjahan Sheikh and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.