Disposed

Ratnadhar Das v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Aug 2024WP(C)/3596/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of pension and post-retirement benefits. Court directed respondents to apply ratio of recent precedents to process pension papers and pay benefits within 90 days, subject to verification of service details.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to process pension papers and release pension and other retiring benefits within 90 days after verification.

Ratnadhar Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010139782024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3596/2024

¶5

RATNADHAR DAS

¶6

S/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS, R/O- VILL.- DOUGARPAR, P.O. BHAWANIPUR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

4:THE COMMISSIONER

¶11

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JURIPAR PANJABARI GHY-781037.

¶12

5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28.

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-781006. 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ZILA PARISHAD BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,K MAINUDDIN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG,SC, P AND R.D.

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

16.08.2024.

¶21

Heard Shri M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P Handique, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department; Shri A Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam; Shri D Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam and Ms. A Talukdar, learned State Counsel.

¶22

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has claimed for release of his pension and other post retirement benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Tax Collector on 18.03.1996. The said appointment has been contended to be made against the valid sanctioned post. Vide an order dated 01.06.2013, 51 nos. of

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

employees of the Department were given the benefit of regularization of service which included the petitioner. The petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his pension and other post retirement benefits. It is contended that the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f., 01.06.2013 i.e. after 01.02.2005, his services fall under the New Pension Scheme.

¶25

3. On this issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 passed in WP(C)/1517/2023 and WP(C)/1903/2023 whereby directions were given for release of pension and other post retirement benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner is similarly placed with the petitioners in those two cases and therefore a similar order may be passed. In this regard, the he has referred to the judgment which has been annexed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition.

¶26

4. Shri Handique, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that though on principle he would not raise any issue on the judgment rendered on 13.05.2024, he submits that a verification exercise be allowed to ascertain the entitlement of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the other respondents have also endorsed the said submission made on behalf of the Department.

¶27

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the Department, this Court has noticed that the aforesaid two writ petitions which were disposed of vide a judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 contains the following observations and directions:

¶28

“19. The law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court is that services rendered by any employee prior to their regularization should be counted

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

towards their pensionary benefits if there is any shortfall in their services rendered after being regularized. Under such circumstances, when there is no dispute that the petitioners have rendered services in ad-hoc capacity continuously against valid sanctioned posts without any break in service and they came to be subsequently regularized by the Government and at the time of their superannuation, the employees did not have qualifying services from the date of their regularizations, then in the opinion of this Court and as has been held by several decisions as discussed above, the period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity against valid sanctioned posts can also be counted for the purposes of satisfying the qualifying period of service prescribed under Rule 31 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶31

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith the process the pension papers and forward them to the competent authority by considering the balance period of service required to W.P(C) No. 1517/2023 & W.P.(C) No. 1903/2023 satisfy the qualifying period of service under the pension Rules from the services rendered earlier in their ad-hoc capacity against the vacant sanctioned posts.

¶32

The respondent authorities will thereafter release the pensions and the other retiral benefits to the writ petitioners as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶33

6. The facts projected being similar to the facts in those two cases, this Court directs that the observations and directions made in the judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 would also be applicable to the present petitioner. The authorities are however given the liberty to verify on the factual aspect and thereafter take action in accordance with law.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Ratnadhar Das v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnadhar Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamalini Devi @ Komolini Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gautam Kr Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ex Constable Force No. 884659103 Jayanta Gogoi Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

The Regional Director (North Eastern Region) Vs Asmot Ali and 5 Ors.

The Regional Director (North Eastern Region) Vs Umor Ali and 5 Ors.

Rashmi Rekha Majumdar Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.