IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that pension eligibility must consider the entire service period from initial appointment, not just post-regularization.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Handique, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 & 6; Ms. R. B. Borah, 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 a speaking order, dated 02.03.2023, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, inter alia, holding therein, that the date of commencement of pensionable service in respect of the provincialized Panchayat employees, would be reckonable with effect from the date of receiving the regular scale of pay and the period of service rendered prior to such receipt of regular scale of pay, being in the nature of adhoc service, would not be reckoned for the purpose of computation of pension and pensionary benefits.

3. The petitioner, herein, has also presented a challenge to the Pension Payment Order(PPO) issued to her authorizing the family pension along with the life-time arrear pension in respect of her husband, basing on the stipulations as contained in the said order, dated 02.03.2023.

4. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner late Asaddar Ali Mazumdar was initially appointed as a Tax Collector in the Office of the Tarapur Gram Panchayat under Cachar Zilla Parishad on 18.09.1957. The husband of the petitioner was initially so engaged on fixed pay basis and was subsequently authorized a scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1975. The husband of the petitioner was, thereafter, promoted to the post of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.12.1988.

5. 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 on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.1992.

6. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees(Provincialization) Act, 1999, has submitted that the date of appointment as defined in the said Act, means in relation to an employee the date on which, he/she had joined the service of the Panchayat. The learned counsel has further placed his reliance on 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, and has contended that this Court, in the said decision, had held that the benefits of the provisions of the Act including those for pension and other retirement dues, would be available to the provincialized employees in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointment.

7. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, accordingly, submitted that the initial date of appointment in respect of the husband of the petitioner, herein, would be the date, he had initially joined the service of a Panchayati Raj Institution(PRI) i.e. 18.09.1957. The learned counsel has further submitted that in pursuance of the directions passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(c)361/2022, vide order, dated 27.04.2022; the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, had, vide order, dated 02.03.2023, considered the issue of non-release of pension and pensionary benefits in respect of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner late Asaddar Ali Mazumdar.

8. Mr. Islam, learned counsel, by referring to the said order, dated 02.03.2023, had submitted that the respondent authorities, in clear violation of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S