IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that long service without regularization due to administrative error entitles the employee's family to pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(BUDI HABUNG, J.) :

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD for the State respondents.

2. Considering the subject matter and also at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The claim of the writ petitioner is for regularization of the service of her late husband for pensionary benefits and family pension. The case of the petitioner is that her late husband Harendra Chandra Das was appointed as Muster Roll Labour in the Office of PWD (RR) under the Sub-Division Office PWD (RR), Barama Sub-Division vide appointment letter dated 08.06.1984. Thereafter the service of the petitioner’s husband was extended from time to time and thus he rendered service as such till he died on 27.11.2014.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that when her husband was in service, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD, Audit Branch issued a circular dated 30.09.2005 for creation of post of 8598 post of Muster Roll Workers and regularization of service of Work Charged/Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and were in continuous service without any interruption/break and was working in their respective establishment. It is further the case of the petitioner that her husband, late Harendra Chandra Das, having worked as Muster Roll Labour w.e.f. 08.06.1984 was eligible for consideration for regularization of his service as per the above circular issued by the Government dated 30.09.2005. But unfortunately, the name of the petitioner’s husband was inadvertently left out and was not included in the list of Muster Roll Labours as per the Office order No. 122 of 2005/06 passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nalbari RR Division, Nalbari dated 07.10.2005 while the case of similarly situated persons were regularized.

5. Being aggrieved by the non inclusion of his name, the petitioner’s husband had submitted a representation before the SDO, PWD (Roads), Barama Sub-Division on 10.10.2011 requesting for regularization of his service as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. However, the said representation submitted by the petitioner’s husband was not considered till the date of his death, i.e., on 27.11.2014.

6. It is further submitted that the late husband of the petitioner filed RTI application on 10.10.2011 seeking information regarding the list of Muster Roll Labours regularized in pursuant to the circular dated 30.09.2005, the Executive Engineer, PWD in his reply dated 16.11.2011 furnished the list sought for and from the said list it was found that most of the colleagues of the husband of the petitioner namely; Ramdhan Das, Pradip Das, Laksman Braman and Jiten Das all his colleagues were regularized who joined as Muster Roll Labour along with the husband of the petitioner. But the case of the petitioner’s husband has been left out due to the mistake of the concerned authority.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime, the petitioner’s husband expired while in service on 27.11.2014 after serving the Department as Muster Roll Labour from 08.06.1984 till his death on 27.11.2014. Thus, the husband of the petitioner had completed more than 30 years of service as Muster Roll Labour in the Department.

8. The further case of the petitioner is that after the death of her late husband, the petitioner obtained the death certificate and her late husband, next of kin certificate, etc and the same were submitted before the concerned authority along with the representation for consideration. However, the same has not yet been considered. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to regularize the service of her husband in terms of the Government circular dated 30.09.2005, as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons for the purpose of pension.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hus