IMPORTANT POINT
The computation of pension must consider the entire length of service from the initial appointment date, not just the provincialization date.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 & 6; Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 5; and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 7.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the computation of the pension and pensionary benefits as made by the respondent authorities in the Pension Payment Order(PPO) being No. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000346, issued to the petitioner, herein.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner late Abdul Kuddus Miah was initially appointed as an employee of Dhubri Mahukma Parishad, on 28.04.1961. In terms of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999; the service of the husband of the petitioner was provincialized w.e.f. 01.10.1991. The husband of the petitioner, thereafter, retired from his service as a Road Mahurar (Grade-III employee) on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2000.

4. The Director of Pension, Government of Assam, thereafter, had finalized the pension and pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner by issuing a Pension Payment Order(PPO) being No. ADP/PRI/PPO/ GPO/2012/000346 and therein, by reckoning the qualifying service of the husband of the petitioner as only 24 years, 11 months and 0 days; proceeded to compute the pension and other retirement benefits receivable by him. The husband of the petitioner expired on 05.12.2000.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of wrong fixation of the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by her husband vide the Pension Payment Order(PPO) being No. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000346; the petitioner, herein, is also in receipt of family pension at a much lower stage than that she was entitled to.

6. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the pension and pensionary benefits as computed in respect of the husband of the petitioner, herein, vide the above-noted Pension Payment Order(PPO), having been so computed on erroneous conclusion that the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner for 24 years, 11 months and 0 days, would only be reckonable for the purpose of computation of pension and pensionary benefits; had fixed the pension of the husband of the petitioner at a much lower stage than that he was required to be so authorized given the length of service rendered by him with effect from the date of his initial appointment on 28.04.1961 till the date of his superannuation from service on 30.04.2000.

7. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of Assam & anr. v. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi and other analogous matters, vide judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, in WA No. 145/2009, has submitted that the computation as made in the said Pension Payment Order(PPO) issued to the husband of the petitioner, is in clear violation of the directions passed by this Court in the above-referred matter. Mr. Islam, learned counsel, accordingly, has submitted that the Pension Payment Order(PPO) as issued to the husband of the petitioner and the manner in which the pension and pensionary benefits were so computed, would require an interference from this Court with a further direction to the respondent authorities to issue a fresh Pension Payment Order(PPO) to the petitioner, herein, by computing the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by her husband, and the consequential family pension receivable by the petitioner, by reckoning the service rendered by him w.e.f. 28.04.1961 till 30.04.2000.

8. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Deve