SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Suren Das S/O- Late Soru Nath Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Panchayatand Rural Development Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/5023/2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M Islam, Ms A Khatun
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, P AND R.D.

Provincialized Panchayat employees are entitled to pension based on their entire service duration, not limited to sanctioned posts.

Headnote:(A) Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999 - Pension Payment Order - Computation of pension and pensionary benefits - Petitioner challenged the fixation of pension at a lower stage due to non-recognition of entire service as qualifying - Court held that entire service from 01.08.1964 to 31.03.2002 must be considered as qualifying service based on prior judgment in Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi case. (Paras 6, 18, 24, 25)

(B) Pension - Entitlement - The court reaffirmed that provincialized employees are entitled to pension based on the length of service from the date of initial appointment, not restricted to the date of provincialization or sanctioned post. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary, challenged the Pension Payment Order that recognized only part of his service as qualifying for pension, despite having served from 01.08.1964 to 31.03.2002.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the computation of pension was in violation of the established legal precedent and directed a re-computation of the pension based on the entire service period.

Issues: The main issues were whether the entire service period should be considered for pension computation and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the entire service period must be recognized for pension computation, aligning with the precedent set in the Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi case, emphasizing the importance of initial appointment dates for determining pension entitlements.

Result: The Pension Payment Order was directed to be revised to reflect the full qualifying service.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

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 as qualifying service 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 temporarily as a Secretary of 84 No. Lah Kayatol Halagoan Gaon Panchayat under Kamrup Mahkuma Parishad on 01.08.1964. The service of the petitioner was provincialized w.e.f. 01.10.1991. The petitioner, accordingly, superannuated from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2002, while working as Secretary of Paschim Banshal Gaon Panchayat under Kamrup Zilla Parishad.

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. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000446 and fixed his pension and other pensionary dues by reckoning only 26 years, 9 months and 29 days of the service rendered by him, as qualifying service.

5. The petitioner, herein, having rendered his service in a Panchayat w.e.f. 01.08.1964, till 31.03.2002, had so rendered his service for 37 years, 8 months and 0 days. However, the respondent authorities treated 10 years, 10 months and 6 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. 01.08.1964 till 31.03.2002, 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 26 years, 9 months and 29 days, 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. 01.08.1964 till 31.03.2002.

9. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, 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 reckoni

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top