Liladhar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Heard Mr. M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. R Boro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶21

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking release of pensionary and other retirement benefits due to him for his 26 years of continuous service.

¶22

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1969 as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Sivasagar District and later on as per service records, the petitioner joined at Nagaon DEF on 10.02.1985 in

¶23

Page No.# 3/7

¶24

the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on district transfer from Sivasagar DEF.

¶25

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he was released from Nagaon Police Station on 31.08.1996 to enable him to join in Bongaigaon DEF on district transfer in the same rank, however he could not join at Bongaigaon DEF due to his mental as well as physical illness. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.09.1996 before the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Administration, Ulubari, Guwahati, informing the said authority that he could not join in service due to his illness and prayed to retain him in the promotional post. However, the petitioner because of his mental illness could not join in service till his age of superannuation was over in the year 2010.

¶26

5. Having stood superannuated and his pensionary and other retirement benefits being not released by the respondent authorities, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

6. Mr. M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not dismissed from service by the respondent authorities and having retired in the year 2010, the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary and other retirement benefits and the same having been not released to him, a direction in this regard is warranted from this Court.

¶28

7. Per contra, Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioner neither joined the new place of posting, i.e., at Bongaigaon nor informed or reported to his authorities till his retirement. He further submits that post retirement also, the petitioner has not approached the respondent authorities to complete the formalities required for releasing the

¶29

Page No.# 4/7

¶30

pensionary and other retirement benefits.

¶31

8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

¶32

9. Apt at the stage to refer to the relevant paragraph of the additional affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6 on 09.06.2025, which reads as hereunder –

¶33

“ That the deponent begs to state that as per service book of the petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 01/07/1950 and accordingly he would have attained superannuation on 30/06/2010 i.e. after attaining 60 years of age as per Govt. Rule. The deponent further states that as per service book, the date of appointment of the petitioner was 15/02/1969. On 31/08/1996, the petitioner was transferred from Nagaon DEF to Bongaigaon DEF on district transfer in the same rank and was released on the same day. Till the date of his release from Nagaon DEF to Bongaigaon DEF, i.e., 31/08/1996 he had completed 27 years 06 months 16 days of his service.

¶34

This is further to state that as per Office Memorandum dated 19/11/1998 issued by the Government of Assam published through ROP 1998 which was given affect from 01/01/1996, the qualifying service period for the Govt. employee was mentioned 33 years or more. It was further provided that “The Govt. employee who at the time of retirement had rendered qualifying service of 10 years or more but less than 33 years, the amount of pension would be proportionately less than the maximum admissible pension”. From the point of view, the instant rule is applicable to those who rendered his/her service till the date of his/her retirement.

¶35

It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner did not render his service till the date of his retirement. Hence, he is not entitled under this Rule. However, as per Office Memorandum dated 04/02/2010 issued by the Government of Assam published through ROP 2010 and was given affect from

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

01/01/2006 brought some changes in the qualifying period of service of the employee serving in different departments of the government of Assam for receiving full pension. It is specifically mentioned there that the qualifying service for receiving full pension of the employee shall be 25 years instead of present 33 years. “Proportionate Pension shall be given to those employees who have completed more than 10 years but less than 25 years of qualifying service”

¶38

If both the ROPs are compared, it is seen that question of rendering service till the date of retirement is absent. Completion of Service period is emphasized rather in this ROP 2010 as well as in the next ROP 2017 affected from 01/04/2016 till date. In the present case it is apparent that the petitioner neither reported to his new place of posting, i.e., Bongaigaon DEF nor reported back to his previous place of posting i.e. Nagaon DEF since 31/08/1996 to 30/06/2010 or any communication made from his end justifying the reason of not joining in the transferred place of posting. Hence, the period from 31/08.1996 (the date when he was transferred) till 30/06/2010 (the date of his superannuation), of service in respect of the petitioner amounts to “No Work No Pay”.

¶39

Further, the then Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, attempted to communicate with the present petitioner by sending a W.T. message to O.C. Kamalpur (which is the home address of the petitioner) P.S. vide Sig. No. R/963/2002 dated 06.08.2002 requesting him to cause an enquiry whether petitioner was at his home or not as he had not reported at Bongaigaon DEF after release from Nagaon DEF. Besides, the petitioner himself did not report back at Nagaon DEF till the date of his retirement showing reasons of his inability to join Bongaigaon DEF as per the order of the competent authority. Since the petitioner was absent from duty without any communication from 31/08/1996 to the date of his retirement i.e. 30/06/2010, hence no decision could be taken by the then authority regarding proving financial benefits to the petitioner. If the petitioner was unable to serve he could have opted for Voluntary Retirement as per F.R. 56(C) with necessary permission from his higher authority but he did not do so. ”

¶40

10. What transpires from the above is that admittedly the petitioner from

¶41

Page No.# 6/7

¶42

31.08.1996 i.e., on being released from Nagaon Police Station, did not join in Bongaigaon DEF on transfer and since then admittedly he has not joined his service till he was superannuated in the year 2010.

¶43

11. It is further admitted that the respondent authorities have also not taken any action whatsoever against the petitioner for not reporting in his duty at the new place of posting nor joining in service till the age of superannuation. Hence, it is established that the petitioner continued to be in service till the age of his superannuation. That being so, the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary and other retirement benefits as claimed for in accordance with law.

¶44

12. As regard the arguments advanced by Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever on the basis of ‘No Work No Pay’, I am not inclined to accept the same in as much as the writ petitioner is not seeking arrear salary due to him, i.e., for the period while he was admittedly absent, which is from 1996 to 2010 in the instant writ petition. However, what is being claimed in the instant writ petition is only the pensionary and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner for his admitted continuous service.

¶45

13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that the instant writ petition in the interest of justice can be disposed of, by directing the respondent authorities to release the pensionary and other retirement benefits as due to the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

14. Ordered accordingly.

¶47

15. It is needless to be clarified that the petitioner shall approach the Parent Department in order to complete the formalities for release of his pensionary

¶48

Page No.# 7/7

¶49

and other retirement benefits and as and when the same is submitted, the respondent authorities in the concerned Departments shall complete the entire process within the time stipulated herein above by coordinating and cooperating with one another.

¶50

16. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Comparing Assistant

Liladhar Kalita v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar Kalita v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Late Prabir Paul Choudhury His Legal Heirs Anupa Paul Choudhury Vs Sri Jnanendra Purkayastha

Billal Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

NO.G/105218L Rifleman (Gd) Ram Prasad Sharma Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Khadiza Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sumadhar Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Raja Rai @ Rajnarayan Rai Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.