Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE
Md Hussain Ali @ Hussen Ali, S/o. Late Helasa Sekh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented By the Principal Secretary to the Govt. Of Assam, Transport Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(KARDAK ETE, J.)
Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1183/2023 and Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.594/2023. Also heard Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department, Ms. R. Deka, standing counsel for the ASTC, Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the Accountant General, Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.
2. The challenge made in these writ petitions is to the letter dated 30.07.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department, whereby, the claim of the petitioners for pension have been rejected, as the petitioners are found not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.03.1970 as per Circular No. TMV 138/70/5 dated 31.03.1970.
3. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar on fact and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. The case, in brief, in WP(C) 1183/2023, is that the petitioner has joined the service in the Transport Departm
Pension eligibility is contingent upon completing 5 years of continuous service before a specified date, as per relevant government circulars.
Absence of prior permanent status disqualifies entitlement to pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, despite permanent absorption in a non-pensionable establishment.
A petitioner is not entitled to pension as his accumulated service does not meet the required 10 years qualifying service, reaffirming the pension rules limiting recognition of temporary service to 5....
The denial of family pension based on unreasonable deductions of service years violates legal principles of fairness; unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to pension as per amended Rule 143.
The court affirmed that an employee appointed before the New Pension Scheme is entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of any undertaking given under duress.
The deduction of initial Muster Roll service years for pension eligibility is unreasonable; continuous service must be recognized in full.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
