Employees are entitled to pension based on the total length of their service from the initial date of appointment, despite administrative restrictions on pension eligibility calculations.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents. Also A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 3, 7 and 8.

2. As projected in the writ petition, Rohini Kumar Das (father of the petitioner) was appointed as Road Moharar of 45 No. Pulsliguri Gaon Panchayat under the erstwhile Barpeta Mahakuma Parishad with effect from 01.08.1960. The services of the petitioner was regularized vide an order dated 09.04.1983 with effect from 01.07.1981. Said Rohini Kumar Das on reaching the age of superannuation proceeded on retirement with effect from 28.02.1998. Said Rohini Kumar Das passed away on 30.05.2006.

3. Upon the demise of said Rohini Kumar Das, his wife Saraswati Das (mother of the petitioner) approached the respondent authorities for processing the due retirement benefits receivable by her husband in connection with the services rendered by him. Although, the processing of the pension proposal was undertaken, the same could not be released during the life time of the wife of late Rohini Kumar Das in as much as she had passed away on 04.01.2022.

4. The petitioner herein being the son of late Rohini Kumar Das, thereafter pursued the matter with the respondent authorities for receiving the life time arrears with regard to the pension receivable by his father late Rohini Kumar Das with effect from March, 1998 to May, 2006 and the arrears of the family pension receivable by his deceased mother with effect from June, 2006 to 04.01. 2022. No action having been taken by respondent authorities in this matter, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

5. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has placed before this Court the instruction received by him from the Departmental authorities. A perusal of said instruction would go to reveal that the Departmental authorities had admitted the fact that Rohini Kumar Das had joined his services with effect from 01.08.1960. However, it was contended that he had received his remuneration in the scale of pay with effect from 01.07.1981 only and had retired on 28.02.1998. Basing on such particulars of the petitioner, it was contended that pension and other pensionary benefits were denied to him in as much as w.e.f. 01.07.1981 he had rendered a qualifying service of 16 years, 7 months 27 days and the same being below 20 years, he was held to be not entitled to pension. The services rendered by late Rohini Kumar Das with effect from 01.07.1981 was only reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining his qualifying service for pension, while the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1960 to 30.06.1981 was held to be non- qualifying service for pension, while the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1960 to 30.06.1981 was held to be non qualifying service for pension.

6. It was further projected by the respondents that late Rohini Kumar Das not being entitled to receive pension, his family would also not being entitled to receive family pension.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials on record.

8. The facts as noticed herein above are not disputed. It is to be noticed that late Rohini Kumar Das had continued in his services w.e.f. 01.08.1960 till the date of his supera