SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, J.
Anjali Devi - Petitioners
Versus
Assam State Electricity Board and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6813 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: I.H. Saikia, S. Kanungoe, K. Kalita, S.A.B. Khabir and B. Borah
For the Respondents: A.H. Choudhury, SC

Headnote:

Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 31 - Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 - Family Pension - Petitioners husband was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on Electrical Sub-division Assam State Electricity Board and He worked regularly without any break in service and subsequently by an order petitioners late husband was regularized as in a regular vacancy at Electrical Sub-division in Scale Pay of Rs per month and A certificate was also issued by Assistant Executive Engineer Roads and Bridges Sub-division - III certifying that petitioners late husband was working - Respondents since husband of petitioner died in harness and after death of her husband petitioner approached respondents for GPF Leave Salary Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) and Family Pension and petitioner received GPF and Leave Salary in respect of her deceased husband respondents did not pay DCRG and GIS and also Family Pension and Being aggrieved petitioner made representations before respondent – Held, A proper reading of O.M. would clearly indicate that New Pension Scheme is made mandatory only to those new entrants to services of LAEDCL and Clause clearly indicates that new scheme is mandatory for those employees joining service on and Coming to case in hand it is undisputed that petitioners husband was appointed as early as a Muster Roll Worker and was regularized as by Order this would indicate that on date of regularization of petitioner’s late husband, he was not a new entrant to service of respondents and It was only a case of regularization into a regular vacancy - Petitioners late husband had joined into service of respondent as early and this Court is of considered opinion that New Pension Scheme as adopted by O.M. is not applicable to petitioners late husband and In that view of matter - It is declared that petitioner is entitled to Family Pension from respondents and Consequently, petitioner is also entitled to receive DCRG as well as GIS and Considering - Petitioner has no source of income and that she has been suffering for a long period of time respondents shall ensure that Family Pension as well as DCRG and GIS are paid to petitioner at earliest but not later than four months from date of receipt of a copy of order of this Court and With above directions with no order as to cost - Writ petition disposed of

JUDGMENT :

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, J.

1. The petitioner's husband, Late Prafulla Ch. Sharma was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.02.1984 at Chaygaon Electrical Sub-division, Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB), Chaygaon. He worked regularly without any break in service and subsequently, by an order dated 07.11.2005, the petitioner's late husband was regularised as Sahayak in a regular vacancy at Chaygaon Electrical Sub-division, ASEB, Chaygaon w.e.f. 01.06.2005 in the Scale Pay of Rs. 2670 - 3990/- per month. A certificate was also issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Bridges Sub-division - III, Karbi Langpi on 04.11.1989 certifying that the petitioner's late husband was working under the respondents since 01.02.1984. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 26.04.2010. After the death of her husband the petitioner approached the respondents for GPF, Leave Salary, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) and Family Pension. The petitioner received the GPF and Leave Salary in respect of her deceased husband, however, the respondents did not pay the DCRG and GIS and also the Family Pension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representations before the respondent No. 2 on 27.4.2011 and 19.3.2012. However, as the representations were not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4302/2012 which was disposed of by an order dated 11.02.2015, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, the respondent No. 2 was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by a speaking order within a period of one month on receipt of the order of the Court.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.03.2015 which was disposed of by the respondent No. 2 by order dated 19.03.2015 rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's husband is not covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and accordingly, the question of Family Pension as claimed by the petitioner is not tenable as per the provisions of New Pension Scheme (NPS).

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the Office Order dated 19.03.2015 with a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the DCRG, GIS and also to provide Family Pension to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB for the respondents.

3. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner's husband was appointed on 01.02.1984 as Muster Roll Worker, he had served the respondents without any break in service and was subsequently regularised by Order dated 07.11.2005 w.e.f. 01.06.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband died on 26.04.2010 while serving as Sahayak in Chaygaon Electric Sub-division, ASEB, Chaygaon. The respondents thereafter, had paid the GPF and Leave Salary to the petitioner, however, the DCRG, GIS, Family Pension were refused to be paid on the ground that the petitioner is covered under the New Pension Scheme, which came into effect from 01.01.2004. He submits that the petitioner's late husband had entered service as early as 01.02.1984 and therefore, the respondents cannot deny the DCRG, GIS and Family Pension to the petitioner on the ground that as the petitioner's late husband was regularised w.e.f. 1.6.2005, his case comes within the purview of the NPS. He submits that the respondents had issued an O.M. dated 21.11.2007 wherein, NPS was adopted as mandatory in case of all the new entrants to the services of LAEDCL w.e.f. 01.01.2004. However, the said O.M. dated 21.11.2007 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner's late husband inasmuch as the petitioner had entered service w.e.f. 01.02.1984. As such, the petitioner's late husband cannot be treated as a new entrant appointed after 01.01.2004. It is also submitted tha









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top