Allowed

Umesh Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jan 2022WP(C)/6965/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Muster Roll worker, challenged non-payment of pension citing alleged insufficient qualifying service including ad hoc period. Court allowed petition directing release of benefits from retirement date, relying on existing precedents excluding ad hoc service deduction.

What did the court decide?

post-retirement benefits be calculated and released to the petitioner from the date of his retirement

Umesh Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010208602021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6965/2021

¶5

UMESH GOSWAMI S/O LATE KHAGEN GOSWAMI,

¶6

VILLAGE BORNAHARANI, PS NARAYANPUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, 787033

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIVISION NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 787031

¶12

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

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 10-01-2022

¶19

Heard Shri LR Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this writ petition for a direction to grant the post- retirement benefits without deducting the period of service rendered on ad hoc basis for calculating the qualifying period.

¶20

2. Considering the subject matter and the broad consensus arrived at in the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶21

3. The subject matter is with regard to the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner, who had retired as a Muster Roll worker from the PHE Department. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the said capacity on 01.01.1988 and was regularized in service vide order dated 07.03.2005. The petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. However, the pension and other post-retirement benefits of the petitioner have not been paid on the ground of not meeting the qualifying service of 20 years.

¶22

4. Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel submits that the issue is no longer res integra as this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, including WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam and Others, 2009 (2) GLT 805] vide the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 has directed that while calculating the period of 20 years, there should not be any deduction of the period of service rendered before regularization. A Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 26.02.2021 has further explained that the benefits would be from the date of their superannuation and not from the date of the judgment as this was issue in another connected case, namely, WA 18/2021

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

[ Binapani Das vs. State of Assam & Ors.] .

¶25

5. Also heard Shri B Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Public Health Engineer (PHE) Department as well as Ms. A Lala, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri B Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam.

¶26

6. The learned State Counsel are also in agreement that the position has been clarified by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Binapani Das (supra) and in fact, a corrigendum is in process to take care of all such cases.

¶27

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed by directing that the post-retirement benefits be calculated and released to the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 31.03.2021.

¶28

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Umesh Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Goswami 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Jiaul Hoque Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Harish Chandra, NO.G.2301013P, Havildargd Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ravindra Goala Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Anr.

Nripendra Kr. Deka Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Matab Uddin Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.

Sofikul Islam Vs the State of Assam