Monowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. R. Boro, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a casual/ master roll worker in the establishment of Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation) on 10-021992 and his service was regularised as Gr-IV Chowkidar w.e.f. 22-07-2005 vide office order dated 06-10-2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gauripur. Petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-01-2024. Although he had rendered the requisite qualifying years of service, the authorities have not paid him adequate pension. Hence, this writ petition.

¶28

By referring to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805 , Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that law is now well settled that 06 (six) years of service, as casual worker, is required to be added to the total length of service of the petitioner in which event, he would have crossed the limit of 20 years of qualifying service for rendering full pension. Notwithstanding the

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

same, the respondents have not paid him the full pension. Contending that the petitioner’s case is covered under the decision of Sanjita Roy (Supra) , Mr. Bhattacharyya has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus in this case.

¶31

Mr. Upadhyay, learned departmental counsel submits that the issue is no doubt covered by the decision of Sanjita Roy (Supra) . However, the petitioner’s claim would have to be verified before enhancing his pension. Similar is the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents.

¶32

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of by providing that the case of the petitioner be considered and processed in accordance with law laid down in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) after carrying out necessary verification as to whether, the pension and gratuity given to him by the authorities is in accordance with law or not.

¶33

The aforesaid exercise be carried out within 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

GS

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Monowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Lala Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Anchad Jwhalao Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti. Champa Devi Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Anuradha Adhikari Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

On the Death of Parul Devi, Her Legal Heirs Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Bina Bala Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.