Allowed

Saraswati Khakhlary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 May 2022WP(C)/6541/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition seeking Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity for the petitioner's deceased husband. Despite conflicting instructions, the Court directed respondent authorities to ensure the initial 6 years of muster roll service are not deducted, authorize the Accountant General to release the gratuity within two months, and issue general directions to prevent similar inact

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 to issue directions for nondauction of initial 6 years service and to authorize the Accountant General to release DCRG within two months.

Saraswati Khakhlary Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010201442021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6541/2021

¶5

SARASWATI KHAKHLARY

¶6

WIDOW OF LATE TIRESH KHAKLARY, EX REG M/R LABOUR R/O VILL. JOYSING TERON GAON (BIRLA), P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN 782462

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

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

¶10

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶11

PWD DIPHU ROADS DIVISION DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 782460

¶12

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶13

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PENSION

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 17-05-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 4 as well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 and Ms. R.M. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. A. Tarana, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that her husband late Tiresh Khakhlary used to work as a regular labour in the office of the respondent no.3. Her husband died on 04.02.2018 and accordingly, the petitioner had approached the authorities for family pension as well as for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG for short). The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in the meanwhile the petitioner had started receiving family pension. Therefore, the only claim in this writ petition is for DCRG.

¶23

None of the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition to deny the claim of the petitioner. However, the learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 has produced a copy of the instructions dated 03.02.2022 from

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

the senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell of the respondent no.2 to the effect that DCRG could not be authorised as net qualifying service of her deceased husband after deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service, stood less than 20 years and that the service of the petitioner was also not confirmed. It is further stated therein that after the judgment and order passed in the case of Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, till date no instructions has been received from the Pension and Public Grievance Department in the matter of non-deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service.

¶26

The Court is appalled to note that despite the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent no.4 i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance Department has not done the needful to issue proper direction to the concerned authorities for not deducting initial 6 years of muster roll service. The inaction on the part of the respondent no.4 to comply with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) has resulted in multiplying of the cases before this Court. The inaction in part of the said authority has compelled the petitioner to approach the Court for redressal of her grievance which could have settled by the respondent no.4.

¶27

The Court is conscious of the fact that in this case the petitioner is merely interested in the redressal of her grievance for DCRG. Nonetheless, this Court being a Court of equity is inclined to express its hope that the respondent no.4 i.e. Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance Department would consider issuance of an appropriate application to

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

all the concerned D.D.O.s i.e. Drawing and Disbursing officers in the matter of non-deduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service. The Court hopes and trusts that the respondent no.4 would take an appropriate decision in the matter.

¶30

In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by allowing the prayer and directing the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, PWD, Diphu Roads Division (respondent no.3), the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,, P&RD (respondent no.4) and the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (respondent no.5) to issue an appropriate direction for nondeduction of initial 6 years of muster roll service of the petitioner and issue an appropriate authorisation to the Accountant General (A&E), Assam (respondent no.2) to enable the said authority to release DCRG to the petitioner. The said three authorities i.e. the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 shall do the needful within the outer period of 2(two) months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the order to respondent no.3.

¶31

In order to expedite the matter, the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5 shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the said authorities to bring the order to their notice.

¶32

The learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 shall provide a photocopy of the instructions to be retained on record.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

9. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Saraswati Khakhlary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Khakhlary v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Tana Susan and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 12 Ors.

Ano Umpe and 115 Ors. Vs The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

M/s Ngarsee Torio Enterprise Vs M/s M.K. Enterprise and 4 Ors.

Mihindra Narayan Konwar and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rupan Acharjee and Anr. Vs the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Rajib Sekhar Nath and Anr. Vs the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and Anr.