Allowed

Smti. Amal Bhuyan v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC29 Apr 2022WP(C)/43/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Office Memorandum that required deducting six years of service for pension. Relying on the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015, the court directed the State to compute the petitioner's husband's service without the deduction to facilitate his pension claims.

What did the court decide?

Lt. Mohan Ch. Bhuyan's service computed from 31.07.1991 to 30.04.2012 without deduction; State directed to pay pensionary benefits within three months.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010220572021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/43/2022

¶5

SMTI. AMAL BHUYAN

¶6

W/O LATE MOHAN CH. BHUYAN, R/O VILL-TUPIA, P.O.-NAHARBARI, P.S.JAMUGURI, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWHATI-6

¶9

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

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29

¶12

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ITAKHOLA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784182

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

6:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WEST ITAKHOLA SUB-DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM

¶15

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER SONITPUR TREASURY DIST-SONITPUR (ASSAM) PIN-78400

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SEMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 29-04-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. K.R Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation department for the respondents No. 1, 3, 5 & 6, Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A. Chuliha, learned Standing counsel for the Finance department/respondent No. 7.

¶22

In the writ petition, the petitioner has inter-alia impugned the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure-6) to the writ petition and also sought for a direction to the respondents to finalize the monthly superannuation pension by considering the total length of service of the petitioner Lt. husband without any deduction of service.

¶23

The petitioner’s Lt. husband namely Mohan Ch. Bhuyan was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 31.07.1991. The petitioner’s husband was regularized in service by creation of Grade-IV post on 06.10.2005. The petitioner’s husband thereafter retired on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation and expired on 15.02.2019. That the petitioner’s husband during his life time applied for pension which was processed but the pension was denied to the petitioner’s husband on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of service after deduction of 6 years as Muster Roll period. This was conveyed to the petitioner’s husband by

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

letter dated 10.09.2015 which was written by the Executive Engineer, Itakhola Division to the Deputy Chief Engineer (MI) & Nodal Officer, Pension Cases, Irrigation department, Assam.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that her Lt. husband has continuously served the department for 20 years and 9 months but in view of the deduction of the first 6 years as Muster Roll worker, the petitioner’s husband has been deemed to be in service only for 14 years and 9 months, thus, disqualifying the petitioner’s husband for pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter dated 10.09.2015 has been issued giving effect to the O.M dated 20.05.2009 issued by the respondent No.2 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.M dated 20.05.2009 which is impugned in the present writ petition was also a subject matter of litigation in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy -versus- State of Assam & Others) and the linked cases. In the said writ petition, this Hon’ble Court by the judgment & order dated 04.12.2018, more particularly in paragraph-29, 30 & 31 has held as follows;

¶28

“ 29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. The question which rises for determination is whether the decision contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, to deduct 6 years of service meet the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While determining the aforesaid question, the Court is reminded of the fact that the petitioners belong to the economically lower strata of the society. As has been held by various judicial pronouncements, it has been laid down that pension is not a bounty or a grace but valuable right accruing by an employee if he fulfills the conditions to be entitled for such pension. The conditions imposed in the instant case for the petitioners who are Muster Roll Workers is completion of a total period of continuous service of 20 years. While this Court, as has been observed above, does not hold that fixation of 20 years of continuous service an arbitrary, the deduction of 6 years does not appear to be reasonable and fair. This Court does not find force

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

that the exercise, in publishing the notification dated 20.05.2009 itself was an under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, further exercise is not permissible. It will be wholly unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker who is admittedly completed 20 years of continuous service of pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003. However, deduction of 6 years or for that matter, any period to calculate 20 years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable. The entire exercise of issuing the notification should be in a positive manner so as to ensure that maximum benefit is given to the incumbents who undoubtedly belong to the economically lower strata of the society. It should have been the endeavour of the State not to make a further classification of Muster Roll Workers who have completed 20 years of continuous service by introducing the condition of deduction of 6 years of casual service. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization.

¶31

30. In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without taking recourse to the said decision this Court has considered the present writ petitions in the forgoing manner.

¶32

31. In view of above discussion and by taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as a Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench mark of 20 years without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made available to them.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

While carrying out said exercise, the respondent authorities are also directed to take recourse Rule 67 for those petitioners who fail to meet the bench mark of 20 years by 12 months or less. No order as to cost.”

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment & order dated 04.12.2018 and therefore, submits that the present writ petition may be disposed as per the findings made in the judgment & order dated 04.12.2018.

¶36

The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the present case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment & order dated 04.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015 and the linked cases, and the present writ petition can also be disposed off accordingly.

¶37

In view of the submissions made by the parties and in the light of the judgment & order dated 04.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015 and the linked cases, it is ordered that Lt. Mohan Ch. Bhuyan service as Muster Roll Worker will be computed from 31.07.1991 till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.04.2012 without deduction of the initial 6 years of Muster Roll period so as to enable the petitioner to qualify for the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband Lt. Mohan Ch. Bhuyan. The entire exercise for paying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner shall be completed by the State respondents within a period of 3(three) months from today.

¶38

With this directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Amal Bhuyan v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Amal Bhuyan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Altaf Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Utpal Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Utpal Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Munna Singh Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

The Union of India Vs Manik Lal Chakraborty

Zakir Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.