IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that disputed questions of fact regarding service regularization cannot be resolved in a writ petition, leading to dismissal of the claim for pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD (Roads) representing the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 5.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release to her family pension and other pensionary benefits, by treating the Muster Roll services, rendered by her husband, to have been regularized.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-

The husband of the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Nalbari, vide an order dated 11.03.1987. Such engagement of the petitioner was so made pursuant to a vacancy caused due to the death of his father-in-law.

It is projected in the writ petition that the services of the petitioner was regularized by the respondent authorities, vide an order dated 07.10.2005 and it is projected that in the list of Muster Roll workers so regularized, the name of the husband of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 63. The husband of the petitioner, in pursuance to his services being regularized, was being paid his remunerations in the regular scale of pay. However, on account of the fact that the respondent authorities had come to a conclusion that the services of the husband of the petitioner was not regularized vide the order dated 07.10.2005; but, it was the services of one Rabin Boro, son of Tumbha Boro, who was so regularized, the pay of the petitioner in the regular scale of pay was stopped and he was reverted as a Muster Roll worker and was receiving his wages in the said capacity.

It is projected in the writ petition that the respondent no. 3 had made communications with the respondent authorities for continuation of the husband of the petitioner in his service as a regularized Muster Roll worker; however, the same was not considered by the departmental authorities. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 07.12.2018. On account of the fact that the service of the husband of the petitioner was held to have been not regularized, the petitioner has been denied her family pension and other pensionary benefits pursuant to the death of her husband, in harness.

The approaches made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities for releasing to her family pension and other pensionary benefits having not evoked any response, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

4. Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed herein above, by referring to a report submitted in the matter by the respondent no. 3 on 19.09.2013, contended that in the establishment of the respondent no. 3, there were three Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 having the identical name ‘Rabin Boro’. The name of the husband of the petitioner was reflected in the said communication as being son of ‘Medo Boro’. It is further contended that the said report, further proceeds to hold that the services of one ‘Rabin Boro’ son of ‘Tumbha Boro’ was not included in the proposal put up for regularization of services of Muster Roll workers engaged under the respondent no. 3. However, pursuant to his death, it had come to light that against the same post, two persons were drawing their salaries. It was further highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the said report, it was the services of the husband of the petitioner, who was then working under Chamata Rural Road Sub-Division, which was regularized against Serial No. 63 of the list as appended to the order dated 07.10.2005. It was further contended that the report highlights the name of the husband of the petitioner was