Allowed

Aliza Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2025WP(C)/361/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition filed by a retired Mrs. Begum regarding denial of full pension due to deduction of six years of Must Roll worker service. The Court followed Sanjita Roy rule and ordered recalculation of pension by adding six years and payment of benefits.

What did the court decide?

recalculate/recompute pension by adding six years of service and pay consequential pecuniary benefits within 90 days.

Aliza Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010009602025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/361/2025

¶6

ALIZA BEGUM WIFE OF LATE DHAN HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF BHASKAR NAGAR, NEAR BHASKAR NAGAR L.P. SCHOOL, POST OFFICE- BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI, POLICE STATION- GEETANAGAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), PIN- 781003.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶11

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT

¶12

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶13

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HAJO-JALUKBARI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶16

6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BHATTACHARYYA,

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, AG,GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶20

ORDER

¶21

07.03.2025

¶22

Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam appearing for the respondent No.2. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam is present for the respondent No.3 and Ms. A. Sarma, learned counsel is present for the respondent No.6.

¶23

The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that she was initially appointed as a casual (Muster Roll) worker 07.01.1991 and her service was subsequently regularised as Helper with effect from 22.07.2005 vide Office Order dated

¶24

06.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Guwahati Mechanical Division

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

(Irrigation), Guwahati. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.03.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having rendered qualifying years of service of more than 20 years, she has not been granted full pension on account of the fact that six (6) years of service as Muster Roll worker was deducted from her length of service thus, having an adverse affect on the quantum of pension.

¶27

By referring to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805 , Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sanjita Roy ( supra ) whereby it has been categorically held that six years of service cannot be deducted from the length of service rendered by a Muster Roll worker whose services were subsequently regularised. As such, submits Mr. Bhattacharjee, the petition requires to be disposed of issuing a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of full pension to her by treating that the petitioner has completed the qualifying length of service for grant of full pension.

¶28

The learned departmental counsel appearing in this case, on instructions, have submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy ( supra ) and therefore, they would have no objection if the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Taking note of the submissions made at the Bar and the facts of the case as well as the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.922/2025, this writ petition stands disposed of by granting the prayer of the petitioner. It is accordingly directed that the pension of the petitioner shall now be

¶30

recalculated/recomputed by adding six (6) years of service to her credit and

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

consequential pecuniary benefits including gratuity etc. shall be paid to her accordingly. The exercise, as directed above, shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Whatever by the outcome of the process, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner in writing within the aforesaid period.

¶33

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Aliza Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aliza Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Dipanjali Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Manohar Deka, Afs Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sribas Ghosh Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Abdul Ahad Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Souvik Sengupta Vs Pramod Agarwal and 3 Ors.

Shri Binay Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Others