Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, U. B. SAHA, JJ.
Sri Nidul Kanti Deb - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura – Respondent
W.P(C) No. 423 of 2015
Decided on : 31-03-2016
Pension Calculation - Muster Roll Employee - Memorandums of 1978, 1982, and 2010 - The court held that half of the service rendered by the petitioner as a Muster Roll employee should be counted towards the qualifying service for calculating his pension and other retiral benefits. The court interpreted the memorandums to allow counting of past service for pension calculation if followed by regularization, regardless of the post at which the employee is regularized.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Muster Roll worker, sought to include his entire service, including the Muster Roll service, for calculating his pension and retiral benefits. The State only considered his service from the date of his regular appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) for pension calculation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that half of the service rendered by the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker should be counted towards the qualifying service for calculating his pension and other retiral benefits. The court held that the memorandums allowed counting of past service for pension calculation if followed by regularization, regardless of the post at which the employee is regularized.
Issues: The main issue was whether the service rendered by the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker should be counted towards the qualifying service for calculating his pension and other retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the memorandums allowed counting of past service for pension calculation if followed by regularization, regardless of the post at which the employee is regularized. The court also emphasized that pension is granted for services rendered, irrespective of the post at which the services are rendered.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed that half of the service rendered by the petitioner as a Muster Roll worker should be counted towards the qualifying service for calculating his pension and other retiral benefits. The entire service rendered by the petitioner from his regular appointment as LDC till his retirement was also to be treated as qualifying service. The retiral benefits were to be recalculated and paid within three months from the date of the judgment, with interest payable if the arrears were not paid by a specified date.
Deepak Gupta, C.J.
The short question which arises for decision in this writ petition is whether half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Muster Roll employee should be counted towards the qualifying service for calculating his pension and other retiral benefits.
2. Briefly stated the admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner started working as Muster Roll worker with effect from 3rd May, 1970 and continued to work as such till 29th August, 1977. Thereafter with effect from 30th August, 1977 he was temporarily appointed as Khalashi for three months but continued to work as Khalashi till 26th July, 1979 when he was regularly appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and joined the post on 27th July, 1979. The petitioner retired from service on 31st March, 2008 and while calculating the retiral benefits the qualifying service of the petitioner has been taken only from 27.07.1979 till 31.03.2008 and the service rendered by the petitioner as Muster Roll worker or as Khalashi has not been taken into consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that his entire service should be counted and taken into consideration.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in para-12 it is stated that since the petitioner was appointed as Khalashi on regular scale as such he is eligible for full benefit of the service as Khalashi for determining the qualifying service to his pension. Therefore, even according to the State the service rendered as Khalashi is to be counted towards the qualifying service.
4. Therefore, only dispute which remain is with the regard to the service rendered by the petitioner on Muster Roll basis. In this behalf the petitioner has relied upon the memorandum dated 16th August, 1978 relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“***The question, as to how the past services of Contingent employees, brought on to the regular establishment, may be counted for the purpose of pension, increment etc. has been under consideration of the state government for some time past. After considering all the aspects, the Governor has been pleased to decide that counting of service of Contingent workers towards pension etc. will be guided on the following conditions:-
(a) Half the period of continuous service rendered by a Contingent employees paid from “WAGES” and engaged on full time may be counted towards pension when followed by employment in regular pensionable service;****”
Thereafter another memorandum was issued on 19th July, 1982 relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“**** The question of counting of past services towards pension of piece-rated Copyists/Typists/ Extra-Moharars etc. who have been brought on the regular establishment, as has been done in case of other contingent employees, has been under consideration of the Govt. for sometime past. Reference are also being received seeking clarification, including references from the Accountant General, Tripura, on earlier orders issued in this regards in respect of contingent employees. After careful consideration the Governor has been pleased to decide that past services of contingent workers and – above stated categories of piece-rated workers, who are brought on to regular establishment without any break will be counted to the extent and in the manner indicated below:
(a) Half the period of services of the following categories of employees will be counted for the purpose of pension:
(i) All contingent employees (except part time contingent employees)
(ii) Piece rated Typists/Copyists/Extra-Moharars of Registration Department and Civil/Criminal Courts.
(iii) Piece-rated workers/Compositors of Govt. press.
(iv) Piece-rated industrial workers of other Deptt.*****”
There is another memorandum of 25th February, 2010 relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“***2] After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor has been pleased to decide that the benefit of counting of half of the period of continuous service rendered by the …Ws(sic)/Contingent Workers/Mo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
