GAHC010162082024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4092/2024

SENTAMALI BASUMATARY

W/O- LATE GOBINDA BASUMATARY,

R/O- VILLAGE DWARKUCHI,

P.O- DWARKUCHI,

DIST- TAMULPUR (NOW), ASSAM, PIN-781367

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006,

ASSAM.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 781006

ASSAM.

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 781006

ASSAM.

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI- 781003

ASSAM.

5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION RANGIA DIVISION RANGIA DIST- KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM PIN-781354

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER RANGIYA TREASURY DIST- KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM PIN-78135 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, MR. S K MEDHI (r-5),SC, AG (A AND E),SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 12.11.2025 Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.

Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 4 & 6. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General Assam, appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 as well as Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for respondent no.5.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for authorizing to her, family pension in respect of the services rendered by her husband, late Gobinda Basumatary, in the Establishment of the Executive Engineer Irrigation, Rangia Division, Rangia, i.e. the respondent no.6, herein.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner, late Gobinda Basumatary, was engaged as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f.

01.01.1980, in the Establishment of the respondent no.6.

Considering the length of service of the petitioner’s husband having found to have been engaged before 01.04.1993, the case of the husband of the petitioner was taken up for consideration for regularization of services in terms of the policy adopted in the matter, in pursuance to a Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005.

The petitioner’s husband was accordingly, regularized in his services w.e.f 22.07.2005. Unfortunately after the regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner, he passed away on 30.09.2005. The husband of the petitioner after regularization of his services, having not served for a minimum period of 1(one) year, the petitioner was denied her compassionate family pension and accordingly, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner admittedly being engaged as a Muster Roll worker prior to 01-04-1993, his case was covered by the policy decision as arrived at in the year 2005, for regularization of the services of Muster Roll worker and accordingly, notwithstanding the death of the husband of the petitioner occasioning on 30.09.2005, he would be entitled to have his services regularized from a date prior to the date of his death. Mr. Patgiri has submitted that the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to family pension and pensionary benefits on the retrospective regularization of the services of her husband by reckoning the services rendered by her husband w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement as Muster Roll worker, i.e. 01.01.1980. He has submitted that the period of services rendered by her husband w.e.f. 01.01.1980 as a Muster Roll worker, would be reckonable for computation of family pension of the petitioner in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam & Ors reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805. He