Renu Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS CHITRALEKHA DAS,MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, AG,SC, SERICULTURE

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 14-08-2025

¶25

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.

¶26

Dhar, learned standing counsel, Sericulture Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 6 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 7.

¶27

The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for authorising to her, family pension in respect of the services rendered by her husband, late

¶28

Amrit Hazarika, in the establishment of Assistant Director of Sericulture, Darrang, Mangaldoi.

¶29

As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner Amrit Hazarika @

¶30

Page No.# 3/13

¶31

Amrit Chandra Hazarika was engaged on 16-10-1981 as a Muster Roll labour in Erri Concentration Centre, Kabikara, under the control of the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Darrang, Mangaldoi, i.e. the respondent No. 6, herein. The husband of the petitioner being a pre 01-04-1993 appointee, his case was taken up for consideration for regularisation of his services, in terms of the policy as adopted in the matter in pursuance to a Cabinet decision dated 22-07-2005. As the matter was under process, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner, died-in-harness on 02-12-2004. In pursuance to the death of the husband, the respondent authorities had taken the process of regularisation of Muster Roll workers to its logical conclusion and vide a communication dated 05-10-2005 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Handloom Textile & Sericulture Department, the services of the Muster Roll workers found eligible for regularisation of their service, came to be regularised in their services. In the list of Muster Roll workers, found eligible for regularisation of their services, the name of the husband of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 20, thereof. Such regularisation was to come into effect, w.e.f. 22-07-2005. However, the husband of the petitioner having already passed on, on 02-12-2004, his services were not regularised. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities for retrospective regularisation of the services of her husband so as to enable her and her children to receive family pension. The said prayer, not being considered, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for the reliefs, as noticed hereinabove.

¶32

Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the

¶33

petitioner admittedly being engaged as a Muster Roll worker prior to 01-04-1993, his case

¶34

Page No.# 4/13

¶35

was covered by the policy decision as arrived at in the year 2005, for regularisation of the services of Muster Roll worker and accordingly, notwithstanding the death of the husband of the petitioner occasioning on 02-12-2004, he would be entitled to have his services regularised from a date prior to the date of his death. Mr. Patgiri has submitted that the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to family pension and pensionary services on the retrospective regularisation of the services of her husband by reckoning the services rendered by her husband w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement as Muster Roll worker, i.e. 16-10-1981. He has submitted that the period of services rendered by her husband w.e.f. 16-10-1981 as a Muster Roll worker, would be reckonable for computation of the family pension of the petitioner in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam & Ors reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805 . He submits that the period of service of the husband of the petitioner, if reckoned from 16-10-1981, he having completed more than 20 years of serivce on the date of his death, in the event, the service of the husband of the petitioner being regularised, there exists no bar for release to the petitioner, herein, her due family pension. In the above premises, Mr. Patgiri prays that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authority to retrospectively regularise the service of the husband of the petitioner and thereafter, to authorise to the petitioner, herein, her due family pension by reckoning the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 16-10-1981.

¶36

Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel, Sericulture Department, Assam have submitted that the services of the husband of the petitioner was not regularised, although his name was included in the list

¶37

Page No.# 5/13

¶38

of Muster Roll workers found eligible for having their respective services provincialised, inasmuch, as the date of effect of such provincialisation was so given w.e.f. 22-07-2005 and the husband of the petitioner had passed on, prior to the date of effect from which services of the Muster Roll workers found eligible for regularisation was to be so regularised. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam places on record a communication dated 22-08-2005, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department, Dispur in connection with the regularisation of services of Work Charged/ Muster Roll workers of different Government departments engaged prior to 0104-1993 and submits that in terms of the guidelines as formulated vide the said communication dated 22-08-2005, a Muster Roll worker who was engaged prior to 01-041993, but had either attained the age of superannuation or expired after rendering continuous service, prior to date of issuance of orders toward regularisation of their services, would now be entitled for regularisation of their services w.e.f. the date immediately preceding the date of superannuation/ death, as the case may be. Mr. Gogoi has fairly submits that the case of the husband of the petitioner is squarely covered by the guidelines as formulated vide communication dated 22-08-2005 and accordingly, he would be also entitled to have his services regularised one day prior to the date of his death which had so occasioned on 02-12-2004.

¶39

Mr. Gogoi has, however, submitted that the regularisation of the services of the husband of the petitioner being granted in terms of the guidelines formulated vide communication dated 22-08-2005, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to receive her family pension, inasmuch as, the husband of the petitioner cannot be deemed to have

¶40

Page No.# 6/13

¶41

rendered continuous service for a period of one year after his regularisation in terms of the provisions of Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (in short “the Rules of 1969”). Mr. Gogoi submits that in terms of the provisions of Rule 140 of the said rules of 1969, a family pension would be admissible in case of death of an officer while in service or after retirement on or after 01-01-1964, if at the time of death the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension, or in case where death had occasioned while in service, the Government servant should have completed a minimum period of one year of service. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi that the husband of the petitioner, in the facts as existing in the matter, cannot be deemed to have

¶42

completed one year of continuous service as a Government servant after his regularisation was so effected in the manner noticed, hereinabove, and accordingly, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to be authorised family pension.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶44

It is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f. 16-10-1981 in the establishment of the respondent No. 3, herein, and while being in such service he had died-in-harness on 02-12-2004. It is also brought on record that the husband of the petitioner being a prior 01-04-1993 Muster Roll appointee, his case for regularisation of his services was taken up for consideration in terms of the policy decision adopted in the matter in pursuance to the Cabinet decision dated 22-07-2005. The processing in the matter being taken to its logical conclusion, the name of the husband of the petitioner, was included in the list of Muster Roll workers, found eligible

¶45

Page No.# 7/13

¶46

for having their services being provincialised. Accordingly, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Handloom Textile & Sericulture Department, vide communication dated 05-10-2005, had conveyed the approval of the competent authority, for creation of 1081 numbers of Gr-IV posts for Muster Roll workers w.e.f. 22-07-2005, for regularisation of the services of the Muster Roll workers whose names have been incorporated in the list annexed to the said communication. A perusal of the list, as annexed to the said communication, would go to reveal that the name of the husband of the petitioner was incorporated, therein, at Sl. No. 20, against the establishment of the Respondent No. 3, herein. However, the said regularisation being directed to be so affected w.e.f. 22-07-2005, the benefit, thereof, was not extended in the case of the husband of the petitioner, inasmuch as, he had died-in-harness, prior to the date of effect given to the regularisation of the services of the Muster Roll workers. The petitioner’s husband had died-in-harness on 02-12-2004. However, from a perusal of the communication dated 22-08-2005, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Dispur, more particularly, the guidelines as framed, therein, it is seen that the case of the Muster Roll workers who were otherwise have found to be eligible to have their services regularised in terms of the policy decision as arrived at, in the year 2005, would be entitled to have their services regularised, even if they had superannuated from their respective service prior to the date of effect given to such regularisation of services and/ or had met with death prior to such date of effect given to their regularisation of services. In terms of the guidelines as formulated in the said communication dated 22-08-2005, Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01-04-1993,

¶47

Page No.# 8/13

¶48

who had expired after rendering continuous service, prior to the date of effect given to the regularisation of services of such Muster Roll works would be entitled to be regularised in their services for one day i.e. the day immediately preceding the date of death by creation of a supernumerary post. In the case on hand, a post having already been created for regularisation of the services of the husband of the petitioner, in terms of the guidelines as formulated vide communication dated 22-08-2005, the services of the husband of the petitioner has to be deemed to have been regularised w.e.f. 01-12-2024, i.e. a day preceding the day of his death, i.e. 02-12-2004. Accordingly, the services of the husband of the petitioner, has to be deemed to have been regularised.

¶49

Having drawn the above conclusion with regard to the regularisation of the services of the husband of the petitioner, the objection raised by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, that the husband of the petitioner not having rendered one year of continuous service after having become a Govt. servant upon regularisation of his services, the petitioner would not be entitled to family pension, would now be required to be considered.

¶50

The materials brought on record would go to reveal that the decision for regularisation of Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01-04-1993 having been arrived at, the respondent authorities had issued an office memorandum dated 20-05-2009 for counting of the past services of a Muster Roll workers towards pension and DCRG. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum dated 20-05-2009, would bring to the forefront that the competent authority of the Government of Assam had directed that upon regularisation of the services of Muster Roll workers, the period of Muster Roll services,

¶51

Page No.# 9/13

¶52

beyond the initial period of 06 years of such Muster Roll service, shall qualify for the purpose of pension and DCRG subject to fulfilment of the conditions, that the period of Muster Roll workers of initial 06 years will be deducted and that such Muster Roll period of service should be continuous and the worker was not employed for specific broken periods. The said Office Memorandum also had the affect of amending to the extent it was provided, therein, the provisions of the Rules of 1969.

¶53

The said Office Memorandum dated 20-05-2009 admittedly was issued in exercise of powers under Rule 31 of the said Rules of 1969. Accordingly, it is seen that on regularisation of the service of a Muster Roll worker, the period of services rendered by him as a regularised employee is treated to be in continuation of the period of service rendered on Muster Roll basis. The said office memorandum dated 20-05-2009, more particularly, the stipulation made therein that the period of Muster Roll service would be reckoned for the purpose of pension and DCRG, subject to deduction of the initial 06 years, thereof was put to challenge before this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) . This Court on consideration of the matter, was pleased to interfere with the said deduction, as provided for of the Muster Roll period of service in the said office memorandum dated 20-05-2009. This Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) upon considering the issue therein had drawn the following conclusions;

¶54

“29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. The question which rises for determination is whether the decision contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, to deduct 6 years of service meet the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While determining the aforesaid question, the Court is reminded of the fact that

¶55

Page No.# 10/13

¶56

the petitioners belong to the economically lower strata of the society. As has been held by various judicial pronouncements, it has been laid down that pension is not a bounty or a grace but valuable right accruing by an employee if he fulfills the conditions to be entitled for such pension. The conditions imposed in the instant case for the petitioners who are Muster Roll Workers is completion of a total period of continuous service of 20 years. While this Court, as has been observed above, does not hold that fixation of 20 years of continuous service an arbitrary, the deduction of 6 years does not appear to be reasonable and fair. This Court does not find force that the exercise, in publishing the notification dated 20.05.2009 itself was an under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, further exercise is not permissible. It will be wholly unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker who is admittedly completed 20 years of continuous service of pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003. However, deduction of 6 years or for that matter, any period to calculate 20 years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable. The entire exercise of issuing the notification should be in a positive manner so as to ensure that maximum benefit is given to the incumbents who undoubtedly belong to the economically lower strata of the society. It should have been the endeavour of the State not to make a further classification of Muster Roll Workers who have completed 20 years of continuous service by introducing the condition of deduction of 6 years of casual service. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization.

¶57

In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without taking recourse to the said decision this Court has considered the present writ petitions in the forgoing manner.

¶58

In view of above discussion and by taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as a Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench mark of 20 years without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made available to them. While carrying out said exercise, the respondent authorities are also directed to take recourse Rule 67 for those petitioners who fail to meet the bench mark of 20 years by 12 months or less. No order as to cost.”

¶59

Having noticed the decision as taken in the matter by the respondent authorities

¶60

with regard to the manner in which the Muster Roll period of service would be reckoned

¶61

Page No.# 11/13

¶62

in respect of a Muster Roll worker regularized in his services as well the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) , this Court would now examine the provisions of Rule 140 of the said Rules of 1969. The Rule 140 of the said rules being relevant, the same is extracted here-in-below.

¶63

“140. Except as otherwise provided in rule 142, a family pension not exceeding the rate mentioned in rule 141 will be admissible in case of death of an officer while in service or after retirement on or after 1^st January, 1964, if at the time of death the retired officer was in receipt of a compassion, invalid, retiring or superannuation. In case of death while in service, the Government servant should have completed a minimum period of one year of service.

¶64

Note 1: The terms “one year of service” mentioned in above rule does not include broken period of service. The service for this purpose should be continuous.

¶65

Note 2: For the purpose of computing the minimum period of completed one year of continuous service, “boy service” and periods of extraordinary leave, if any, shall be excluded.”

¶66

A Perusal of the said rules would go to reveal that in case of death of an officer

¶67

while in service, the family members would be entitled to family pension provided such

¶68

officer, at the time of his death had completed a minimum of period of one year of service. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam is to the effect that the services of the husband of the petitioner, even if deemed to have been regularized, in terms of the guidelines formulated vide communication dated 22-08-2005, w.e.f. 01-12-2004, he having passed on, on 02-12-2004, he admittedly had not completed one year of minimum period of service and accordingly, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to be authorized family pension. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected, inasmuch as, the Office Memorandum dated 20-05-2009, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) , would go to reveal that the competent

¶69

Page No.# 12/13

¶70

authority had provided for reckoning the period of Muster Roll service for the purpose of calculating pension and DCRG. In the case of the husband of the petitioner, the period of Muster Roll service rendered by him is continuous in nature and the same would now be automatically added to the regularized service rendered by him as indicated, hereinabove, and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner is found to have rendered more than one year of service. Accordingly, on reckoning the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 16-10-1981 on Muster Roll basis, on regularization of his services, it is found that he has rendered more than 20 years and accordingly, the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner is found to be satisfying the conditions of Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969 and the petitioner is thus, eligible for being authorized family pension. At this stage, it is to be noted that a temporary Government servant, a minimum period of 20 years continuous service, without being confirmed, is required for being eligible to be considered for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. Further, the provisions of Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969 mandates only a minimum period of service of 01 (one) year. The husband of the petitioner, herein, having rendered more than 20 years of continuous service, his family would be entitled to be authorized family pension. It is reiterated that the service of the husband of the petitioner, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 2005-2009, considered along with the interpretation placed therein by this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra) has to be now so construed w.e.f. 16-10-1981 and accordingly, he is found to have been rendered more than 20 years of continuous service and accordingly, his family members including the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to be authorized family pension.

¶71

Page No.# 13/13

¶72

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 6 are directed to process the family pension proposal of the petitioner, herein, and to forward the same to the respondent No. 5, i.e. the AG(A&E), Assam within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The office of the AG(A&E), Assam, on receipt of such proposal, shall verify the same and proceed to authorize to the petitioner her due family pension with retrospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. 03-12-2004. On issuance of the required Family Pension Payment Order in this case, the arrears of pension and other pensionary benefits be released to the petitioner. Thereafter, the regular family pension be released to the petitioner.

¶73

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

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Comparing Assistant

Renu Hazarika v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Hazarika v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Cleanrooms Containments Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Badan Chandra Nath

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Zenith Enterprise

Fancy Bazar Municipal Market Dealers Association and Anr. Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ranjit Deka Vs the State of Assam