IMPORTANT POINT
The entire service period of a Panchayat employee must be considered for pension computation, not just the provincialized period.

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 the fixation of his pension and pensionary benefits at a lower stage in the Pension Payment Order(PPO) issued to him on account of the fact that the entire service rendered by him as a Panchayat employee, was not treated as qualifying service and only a part of such service came to be so reckoned for the purpose of computation of his pension and pensionary benefits vide the said Pension Payment Order (PPO).

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was initially appointed as a Secretary of Barpeta Gaon Panchayat on 01.08.1962. The service of the petitioner was provincialized on 16.11.1991 w.e.f. 01.10.1991. The petitioner, superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2004, while working as Secretary of Gorajan Gaon Panchayat under the Zilla Parishad, Nagaon.

4. The Director of Pension, Government of Assam, finalized the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner and proceeded to issue a Pension Payment Order(PPO) being No. DP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2011/000156 and fixed his pension and other pensionary dues by reckoning only 27 years 11 months and 26 days of his service, as qualifying service.

5. The petitioner, herein, having rendered his service in a Panchayat w.e.f. 01.08.1962, till 30.06.2004, had so rendered his service for 41 years 10 months and 29 days. However, the respondent authorities treated 13 years 11 months and 8 days out of the said period of service rendered by the petitioner as non-qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and pensionary benefits. Resultantly, the petitioner was authorized his pension and pensionary benefits at a lower stage than that he was entitled to so receive.

6. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has contended that in terms of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court 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; the petitioner, herein, was entitled to reckon the entire period of his service w.e.f. 01.08.1962, till 30.06.2004, as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pension and pensionary benefits.

7. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the computation of the pension and pensionary benefits in respect of the petitioner as made vide the said Pension Payment Order(PPO), noticed hereinabove; by only reckoning 27 years 11 months and 26 days of his service, as qualifying service, is in clear violation of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra).

8. Mr. Islam, learned counsel, has also submitted that the said Pension Payment Order(PPO) would require an interference with further direction to the respondent authorities for re-computation of his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning his qualifying service to be the service rendered by him w.e.f. 01.08.1962, till 30.06.2004.

9. Per contra, Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, and Mr. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, in unison, have submitted that the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees(Provincialized) Act, 1999, defines the term “employee” to mean a person in employment of a Panchayat against a regular sanctioned post and accordingly, by reckoning the period of service rendered by the petitioner, herein, against a sanctioned post and/or against a post ha