Gauhati High Court
On The Death Of Azim Uddin Choudhury His ... vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010026332017
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3487/2017
ON THE DEATH OF AZIM UDDIN CHOUDHURY HIS LEGALHEIR/WIFE
ANOWARA BEGUM CHOUDHURY
W/O LATE AJIM UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O VILLAGE-TUNURKANDI, PO-
SONAIMUKH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
ASSAM
PANJABARI
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI-37
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR ZILA PARISHAD
PO-SILCHAR
DIST.CACHAR
ASSAM
4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SONAI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PO-SONAIMUKH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/8
5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AandE
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
HOUSEFE COMPLEX
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS R RAJKHOWA, DR. B AHMED,MR. A K AZAD,MR.I H
BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. R K TALUKDAR (R-5),SC, AG,MR. A
ROY(SC,PNRD R-1&2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. I H Barbhuiyan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A K Ghosh, Learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 , Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R K Talukdar, Learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for respondent no. 5 and Mr. H Sarma, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 6.
2. The present writ petition was initially instituted by Azim Uddin Choudhury, praying for grant of pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the services rendered by him since his initial engagement in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), in terms of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Assam & another vs. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi, judgment and order dated 24.03.2010, passed in Writ Appeal no. 145/2009. The petitioner Azim Uddin Choudhury (hereinafter referred to as the original petitioner), during the pendency of the present proceedings, had passed on, on 01.10.2020.
Page No.# 3/8 Accordingly, the legal heir of the original petitioner i.e. his wife (Anowara Begum Choudhury) instituted an application praying for permitting her to substitute herself in place of the original petitioner. The said prayer was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2023 and accordingly, Anowara Begum Choudhury was substituted as the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the original petitioner, herein, was initially engaged as a Substitute Teacher in Tandurkandi L.P School vide an order dated 05.02.1982 issued by the Secretary, Silchar Mahkuma Parishad. The petitioner joined the services on 08.02.1982. The original petitioner was, thereafter, engaged as Tax Collector vide an order dated 19.01.1993 and he had joined his services in such capacity w.e.f 01.02.1993. After the enactment of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, the original petitioner, herein, who was, thereto before, considered as a ex-cadre provincialised for the Panchayat employee, was brought against a cadre post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) vide issuance of an order dated 29.11.1999, passed by the then Director, P&RD, Assam. The petitioner continued in his services as a provincialised Panchayat employee against a post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and retired from his services w.e.f 31.10.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. Upon superannuation of the petitioner, the Cachar Zila Parishad processed the pension proposal of the petitioner, however, the same not having been taken to its logical conclusion, the original petitioner had instituted the present writ petition.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, at the outset, has submitted that the respondent authorities, had for the purpose of computing the qualifying service of the petitioner, reckoned only the service rendered by him, w.e.f 29.11.1999, till the date of his superannuation and accordingly, his qualifying service was computed as 17 years, 9 months and 30 days. The original petitioner, having a qualifying service less than 20 years, he was held to be not eligible for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits, in terms of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Mr. I H Barbhuiyan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra), has submitted that it was laid down in the said decision that in respect of a provincialised Panchayat Employee, the period of service rendered by such employees, for Page No.# 4/8 the purpose of computing the qualifying service, has to be reckoned from the date he was so initially engaged in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI). The learned counsel further submits that the original petitioner having been engaged in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), although against a school under the control of the Silchar Mahkuma Parishad, w.e.f 05.02.1982, and he having joined his services w.e.f 08.02.1982, the qualifying service of the original petitioner would be the service, rendered by him, w.e.f 08.02.1982, till the date of his superannuation, which had occasioned on 31.10.2013. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original petitioner has more than 20 years of qualifying service and accordingly, was eligible for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1969.
5. Per Contra, Mr. A K Ghosh, Learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, Assam, submits that the term Employee under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, would mean a person in employment of a Panchayat against a regular sanctioned vacant post and accordingly, the petitioner, having been accommodated against a regular sanctioned post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) only w.e.f 29.11.1999, the original petitioner, admittedly, does not have the qualifying service of 20 years and accordingly, he is not entitled to be authorized pension and pensionary benefits, under the provisions of the said Rules of 1969. Accordingly, Mr. A K Ghosh, Learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, Assam, submits that the petitioner, not having fulfilled the requirements, with regard to qualifying service, the non-authorization of pension and pensionary benefits to him, was not erroneous and accordingly, the same would not mandate an interference from this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. While the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the services of the original petitioner with effect from the date he had initially joined his services, in pursuance to the order dated 05.02.1982 and the period with effect from such date of joining till the date of his superannuation, would be mandated to be so construed for the purpose of computing his qualifying service, the said position is disputed by Mr. A K Ghosh, Learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, Assam, who submits that the original petitioner would be entitled to only reckon the services rendered by him after 29.11.1999, till the date of his Page No.# 5/8 superannuation which had occasioned on 31.10.2013, for the purpose of computing his qualifying service. The said dispute, having been noticed, this Court also notices that there is no dispute, with regard to the fact that the services of the original petitioner was provincialised under the provisions of Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999.
8. The provisions of Section 2(a) of the said Act of 1994, defines the term "appointed day" to mean, the date on which the said Act of 1999 came into force. The provisions of 2(b) of the said Act of 1999, defines the term "date of appointment" to mean, in relation to an employee, the date on which, he joined the service of a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI). The provisions of 2(d) of the said Act of 1999, defines the term "employee" to mean a person in the employment of Panchayat against a regularly sanctioned post.
9. The Panchayat employees not being granted, the pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provincialization of their service; proceedings came to be instituted before this Court which ultimately resulted in institution of a writ appeal being WA No. 145/2009 i.e. State of Assam & anr. Vs Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi . The said writ appeal was given a final consideration by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, along with other analogous matters.
10. The Division Bench of this Court, vide the judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, examined the various provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, and with regard to the term "date of appointment"; the Division Bench of this Court had concluded that the same indicates unerringly to be one vis-à-vis such employee, the date on which, he/she had joined the service of the Panchayat. It was further concluded by this Court that on a scrutiny of the provisions of the said Act of 1999, it was discernible that the term "appointed day" was provided to indicate a cut-off date for provincialization of the service of the existing employees while the term "date of appointment", was comprehended for the purpose of continuity of service of such employees on and from the date of their initial appointment to determine their entitlements under the legislation, including the pension and other retirement benefits.
11. In view of the said conclusions; the Division Bench of this Court had vide the Page No.# 6/8 judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, passed in WA No. 145/2009, held, as follows:
"................................We are, therefore, of the considered view that the benefit of the provisions of the Act including those for pension and other retirement dues would be available to the provincialized employees in service on and after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date(s) of their initial appointments."
12. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra), was carried upon appeal by the State Respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same came to be dismissed. The decision of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (supra) , settled the position with regard to the entitlement of pension and other pensionary benefits to provincialized Panchayat employees and also the period reckonable for computation of such pension and pensionary benefits.
13. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, having laid down that the pension and other retirement dues would be available to the provincialized Panchayat employees in service on or after 01.10.1991, on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointments; such prescription would mean the date of first entry into service by such an employee in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI). The Division Bench of this Court in the above-noted case, had not restricted the term "date of appointment", to mean, the date of such appointment of a provincialized Panchayat employee in a Panchayat against a regular sanctioned post and/or the date on which such employee was authorized a scale of pay with due increments.
14. The said position was accepted by the respondent authorities and the Pension and Public Grievance Department, vide Notification, dated 17.03.2011, had prescribed that the benefits of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, including those for pension and other retirement dues as applicable to the State Government employees, would be available to the provincialized Panchayat employees who were in service on or after 01.10.1991, on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointments in the service of the Panchayat.
15. The term "initial appointment" as finding place in the said Notification, dated 17.03.2011, issued by the Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam, Page No.# 7/8 would mean the date of first entry by the provincialized Panchayat employee in the service of a Panchayat. The Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam, had, thereafter, vide Notification, dated 22.12.2014, reiterated the said position.
16. As noticed, hereinabove, the original petitioner had initially joined his services in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), in pursuance of an order dated 05.02.1982. The respondents have contended that the said engagement of the petitioner was not in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) but was in a school. This Court, on a perusal of the order dated 05.02.1982, has found that the school, at the relevant point of time, was under the control of the Silchar Mahkuma Parishad and it is the Secretary of the Silchar Mahkuma Parishad, that had proceeded to appoint the original petitioner as a Substitute Teacher in the Tandurkandi LP School. Accordingly, the engagement of the original petitioner, being so effected in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), by an authority of a Panchayati Raj Institution, the contentions of the respondents, that initial engagement of the original petitioner was not in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), would not mandate an acceptance from this Court and accordingly, such contention stands rejected.
17. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court finds that the original petitioner had joined his services in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) w.e.f 08.02.1982. Accordingly, the original petitioner would be entitled to reckon as his qualifying service, for computing of pension and pensionary benefits, the services so rendered by him, admittedly in a Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI), w.e.f 08.02.1982 till 31.10.2013. Having noticed the entire period rendered by the original petitioner is permissible to be reckoned, for the purpose of computing his qualifying service, this Court finds that the original petitioner had more than 20 years of qualifying service and accordingly, the original petitioner is held to be entitled to be authorized, pension and pensionary benefits. The original petitioner, having passed away during the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent authorities would now be required to authorize to his wife, that is the present petitioner (Anowara Begum Choudhury), the pension and pensionary benefits, on account of the services rendered by the original petitioner, including the lifetime arrears receivable by the original petitioner, during his lifetime.
18. In view of the above, the Commissioner, P&RD, Assam, is directed to process the Page No.# 8/8 pension proposal in favour of the present petitioner Anowara Begum Choudhury, by reckoning the qualifying service of the original petitioner, to be the service rendered by him w.e.f 08.02.1982 till 31.10.2013. The said proposal be prepared and finalized within a period of 1 (One) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On finalization of the pension proposal, the Commissioner, P&RD, Assam, shall forward the same to the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for further processing and for issuance of the Family Pension Payment Order (FPPO) and Gratuity Pension Order (GPO). The Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, shall issue the Family Pension Payment Order (FPPO) and Gratuity Pension Order (GPO) within a period of 2 (Two) months from the date of receipt of the pension proposal, in favour of the petitioner, from the, Commissioner, P&RD, Assam. Along with the said pensionary benefits, now receivable by the petitioner, the lifetime arrears of pension, receivable by the original petitioner, shall also be computed and released to the present petitioner i.e. Anowara Begum Choudhury.
19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant