Partly allowed

Hema Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 May 2022WP(C)/558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed respondent authorities to count the petitioner's entire continuous service as a Muster Roll worker without deducting initial years. If the service meets 20 years, the petitioner is entitled to pension. The exercise must be completed within three months, with existing terminal gratuity deducted from the pension.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to determine continuous service without deduction; if it reaches 20 years, grant pension with adjustment for terminal gratuity. Exercise to be completed in 3 months.

Hema Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010011262022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/558/2022

¶5

HEMA NATH S/O LATE LILA KANTA NATH, R/O VILL- BAMUNBARI, P.O.-SOLAGURI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784180 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT 2ND BLOCK-B KRISHNA NAGAR CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ITAKHOLA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER TEZPUR DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400

¶6

Page No.# 2/3

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶9

BEFORE

¶10

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

06.05.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.06.1991 in the office of the respondent no.5. The petitioner’s service was regularized as Khalasi w.e.f. 22.07.2005 as reflected in the petitioner’s Service Book. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011, after rendering 20 years and 4 months service as a Muster Roll Worker. The petitioner’s grievance is that the petitioner’s pension papers has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service as a Muster Roll Worker, after deducting the initial six years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.

¶14

2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the present case is covered by the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895, wherein it has been held that 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 20 years of service. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to count the petitioner’s service, without making any deduction of the initial years of service as a Muster Roll worker and if the service of the petitioner crosses the benchmark of 20 years, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of

¶15

Page No.# 3/3

¶16

pension.

¶17

3. Ms. T.S. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 5, Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submit that they have got no objection with the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, as the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra) .

¶18

4. In view of the submissions made by the counsels 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 deduction of any period of his service. If such service period reaches the bench mark of 20 years, the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioner. The exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The terminal gratuity already paid to the petitioner should be adjusted from the pension payable to the petitioner.

¶19

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Comparing Assistant

Hema Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hema Nath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pran Krishna Sarma Baruah Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Birendra Karjee Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Pulin Chandra Das Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Manash Doloi @ Manash Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mente Pait Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pinku Ghosh Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.