GAHC010177422022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5751/2022 DANDADHAR SARMAH S/O- LT. SRI DIKMAL SARMAH, VILL-BHOLABARI, P.O. BHOLABARI, P.S.
KALAIGAON, DIST.- UDALGURI (BTAD), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, P.H.E.
DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR GHY-06
3:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
ASSAM
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-29
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.H.E. DEPT.
HENGRABARI ASSAM
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TANGLA UDALGURI BTAD AREA ASSAM
7:TREASURY OFFICER UDALGURI BTAD AREA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05-09-2022 Heard Mr. AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the establishment of the respondent No. 6 on 28.03.1991. The petitioner’s service was thereafter regularised vide order dated 29.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner thereafter retired on 31.07.2016 as a Khalasi. Though the petitioner had 25 years 4 months 5 days of continuous service as a Muster Roll Worker, the petitioner was not granted pension on the ground that he did not had the qualifying 20 (twenty) years of service for grant of pension, after deducting his initial 6 (six) years of service as a Muster Roll Worker.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that the present case is a covered case in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam, reported in 2019 2 GLT 805, He accordingly submits that pension should be granted to the petitioner.
Mr. SM Hasan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Ms.
S Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Ms. A Lala, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Ms. A Tarana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and 7 fairly submit that this is a covered case in terms of the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra).
In the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), this Court had held that the entire service period of a Muster Roll employee had to be considered while determining whether the Muster Roll employee had served for 20 (twenty) years continuously. This Court further held that if a regularised Muster Roll Worker is found to have served for 20 (twenty) years by continuing his service period prior to regularisation and after regularisation, the Muster Roll Worker should be granted pension. Accordingly, the said respondents are directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker without deducting any period of his service. If the continuous length of service of the petitioner as a Muster Roll Worker reaches the 20 (twenty) years qualifying service mark, the petitioner should be granted pension.
The entire exercise should be conducted within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The gratuity amount paid to the petitioner, if any shall be adjusted against the pension payable to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.