The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for pensionary benefits under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 is determined by specific conditions, including the nature of salaries, the permanent retention of posts, and the distinction between entities falling under the definition of 'State' and their liability for pensionary benefits.

7 (Seven) numbers of petitioners have joined together in this petition which has been filed primarily with a claim for pensionary and other post retirement benefits as per the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 (hereinafter called the Rules).

2. The facts as projected in the petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Grade-III and Grade-IV employees in the Assam Minorities Development Board which was constituted in the year 1985. Certain posts for the said Board were sanctioned vide order dated 28.02.1987 and 29.12.1987 and it is contended that the posts are sanctioned post. Vide an order dated 25.01.2012, the Department had permanently retained the said post. Subsequently, the GPF accounts of the petitioners were opened on 06.12.2012. Thereafter, the Director of the Board had issued a communication dated 25.04.2013 to the Department on the issue of payment of pension to the petitioners. The said communication was however negated by the Department vide letter dated 22.02.2012 by stating that the Board was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Subsequently, vide communication dated 19.07.2013, the Department had informed the Director of the Board that the employees would not fall under the Rules of 1969.

3. I have heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Welfare of Minorities Development Department and Shri S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, AG, Assam. Shri C.S. Hazarika, learned State Counsel is present for the other State respondents.

4. Shri Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969 has submitted that three conditions are laid down by the said Rule as qualification for pension. He submits that the petitioners fulfil the aforesaid conditions in view of the fact that the Board is wholly controlled by the Government and for all practical purposes, the petitioners can be treated as Government Servants. It is further submitted that the salaries of the petitioners are paid from the Government funds and the post are permanently retained by the Department. The learned Counsel has also taken the aid of Rule 36 which lays down that continuous temporary or officiating services can also be included for the purpose of pension. It is submitted that for all practical purposes, the post in question are under the Department and even the Director of the Board is an ACS Officer who is paid salary by the Government.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (2004) 3 GLR 211 (Pulin Goswami vs. State of Assam & Ors.). In the said case, a direction was given by this Court for release of pensionary benefits to the incumbent in that case who was working as a teacher against a duly sanctioned post.

6. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel of the concerned Department has strenuously opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioners are not Government employees and the order dated 25.01.2012 of permanent retention would itself make it clear that the salaries were paid as a Grant-in-aid and not from the normal Head of salaries. The Department vide communication dated 19.07.2013, after examination of the matter had made it clear that the services of the petitioners would not come within the ambit of the Rules of 1969.

7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-in-opposition filed on 20.03.2014, the learned Standing Counsel has placed on record the averments made therein, more specifically in paragraphs 4 and 7. In the said paragraphs, the aspect of payment of salaries as a form of Grant-in-aid and the aspect that permanent retention would not mean eligibility to pension have been clearly stated.

8. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Assam vs. Barak