Disposed

Dharma Nath v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2022WP(C)/612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired teacher, sought relaxation of service shortfall to qualify for pension. High Court noted failure to approach appropriate authority. Disposed petition with liberty to file application for condonation of shortfall under Rule 67.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application under Rule 67 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 for condonation of net qualifying service shortfall.

Dharma Nath Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010016802022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/612/2022

¶5

DHARMA NATH

¶6

S/O LATE THULESWAR NATH, R/O VILL-KADOICHUK, P.O. AND P.S.JAMUGURUHAT, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784180

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

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

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK 6TH FLOOR BELTOLA ROAD

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

GUWAHATI-06

¶16

6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NADUAR JAMUGURIHAT DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784182 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER SONITPUR TREASURY DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78418

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 07-09-2022

¶22

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ganesh Pegu, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, Mr. Girin Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 5 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department for the respondents No.3 and 8.

¶23

The petitioner who retired from service on 31.05.2010 as a teacher after having rendered 9 years 9 months, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent authorities to relax the shortfall of remaining 3 months of service by the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

petitioner to complete 10 years of net qualifying service, which is a requirement for the person retired from service to get pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The provision for relaxation of the shortfall of the qualifying period of service is provided under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, where under, it is the Government, who can take a decision on such relaxation to be given. The petitioner, however, has not filed any representation to the government seeking such relaxation.

¶26

Since the petitioner has not approached the appropriate authority under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 seeking condonation/relaxation of the net qualifying service of the petitioner before the instant writ petition is filed, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a liberty granted to the petitioner to file application seeking condonation of the shortfall of net qualifying service of the petitioner under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 before the appropriate authority.

¶27

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file application under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 seeking condonation of the net qualifying service of the petitioner. As and when such application is filed by the petitioner, the appropriate authority under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

¶28

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Comparing Assistant

¶30

JUDGE

Dharma Nath v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharma Nath 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyotisha Mahanta and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pranita Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Abdul Ahsan and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ranuj Pegu Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashoka Rani Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Brajen Kumar Nath Vs State of Assam and 6 Ors.