Gauhati High Court
Jashna Begum vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 25 May, 2022
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010094482022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3433/2022
JASHNA BEGUM
W/O- JEHIRUDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF KAKOJAN PURANI GAON,
P.O- KAKOJAN, P.S. LATUGORH, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI- PIN- 781001.
3:ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29.
4:DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
5:CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
AMGURI ICDS PROJECT DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM.
6:TREASURY OFFICER
SIVASAGAR TREASURY DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B C MUCHAHARY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 25-05-2022
1. Heard Mr. B.C. Muchahary, learned counsel petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as an Anganwadi Worker under the establishment of the Child Development Project Officer, Lumbajong ICDS Project on 10.06.1981. After rendering 14 years of service as Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor vide order dated 22.03.1995. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013 and accordingly submitted pension papers to the respondent No.2 for grant of the same. However, the pension papers of the petitioner was returned back with a note stating that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pension as she had not completed 20 years of service as Supervisor, for grant of pension and other retirement benefits.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondents will have to take into account the service rendered by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker also, besides the service period undergone by her as a Supervisor for grant of pension. He submits that the present case is covered by the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1999/2022 (Purnima Basumatary -Vs- State of Assam & 5 Ors.), wherein this Court had held that the State respondents were to take into account the service rendered by the petitioner therein as an Anganwadi Worker, in addition to her service as Supervisor, for grant of payment of pension if the petitioner therein had completed 20 years of service by counting the service period of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and Supervisor.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that in the present case, the entire service period of the petitioner, i.e. Anganwadi Worker and service as Supervisor, was 32 years 9 months and 21 days and as such, the petitioner herein should be granted pension.
4. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate Assam for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5; Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 fairly submit that this case is covered by the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1999/2022.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. On perusing the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1999/2022, this Court finds that the present case is covered by the above order, inasmuch as the petitioner in the above case had worked as an Anganwadi Worker prior to being promoted to the post of Supervisor. This Court had in the above case directed that the service period of the petitioner therein as Anganwadi Worker and Supervisor had to be counted for the purpose of grant of pension.
7. WP(C) No.1999/2022 had been disposed of in line with the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No.2964/2018. Paragraph 7 of the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1999/2022 is reproduced below as follows:-
"7. The relevant paragraph 7- 11 of the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in the WP (C) no. 2964/2018 is reproduced below:
'7. In order to count the qualifying service, it is not necessary that Page No.# 4/5 the employee must have rendered only in a particular grade.
8. In the present case, the petitioner was working as an Anganwadi Worker since the year 1987 as mentioned above and as such, it is not permissible to ignore such service rendered by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, especially when the same had been recognized by the authorities for the purpose of promotion to a higher post, even if the service rendered as a Anganwadi Worker may not have been treated to be a pensionable service.
9. If the service rendered by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker had not been recognised, the question of giving "promotion" to a higher post will not arise.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to prepare afresh the documentation by taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker after she was appointed on 20.07.1987 and thereafter, submit the papers to the Office of the Accountant General for payment of pension, as she would have completed more than twenty years of service as Anganwadi Worker as well as Supervisor.
11. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the Department/ authorities within the period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of such papers from the Department, the Office of the Accountant General will do the needful within further one month from date of receipt of such papers for payment of pension to the petitioner."
8. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondent authorities, namely, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, are directed to count/verify the service rendered by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and Supervisor jointly and if the service period of the petitioner reaches the benchmark of 20 years, they should submit the petitioner's pension proposal to the Office of the respondent No.3 for final approval and payment of pension. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the concerned respondents and concluded within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified Page No.# 5/5 copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant