Gauhati High Court
Pradip Kumar Baruah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 6 December, 2021
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010168182021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6465/2021
PRADIP KUMAR BARUAH
S/O. LT. JANAK CH SHILL @ JANAK CHANDRA SEAL, VILL.
BARNALIKUCHI, P.O. PATACHARKUCHI, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST.
BAJALI, ASSAM, PIN-781325.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PATHSALA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DEPTT.
Page No.# 2/4
PATHSALA
DIST. BAJALI (NOW) ASSAM
PIN-781325.
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
PATHSALA TREASURY
DIST. BAJALI
ASSAM
PIN-781325
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
06.12.2021 Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's father was appointed as Muster Roll worker in the office of the respondent no.5 on 02.07.1984. The petitioner's father's service was thereafter regularized vide order dated 06.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner's father retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have denied payment of arrear pension to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner's father had not completed 20 years of net qualifying service, after deducting the initial 6 years of Muster Roll service.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the present case is a covered case and in terms of the judgment passed in Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others , reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, the entire service period of the petitioner's father as a Muster Roll worker has to be counted, to determine whether the Muster Roll worker had completed 20 years of service. She submits that if there is no deduction of 6 years from the entire service period of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner's father as a Muster Roll worker, the petitioner's father would have completed 23 years 3 months and 29 days. She accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to verify whether the petitioner had the qualifying service of 20 years as a Muster Roll worker, without deducting any years of service as a Muster Roll worker.
3. Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 5; Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent no.6; Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submit that Notice may be issued in this case, so as to enable them to obtain instructions.
4. In the case of Sanjita Roy (Supra), this Court has held that the purpose of determining whether the Muster Roll employee has the required 20 years of continuous service, the State authorities would have to count the entire period of service of a Muster Roll worker and there cannot be any deduction of the initial 6 years of service of a Muster Roll worker. The Court thus held that if a Muster Roll worker had the required qualifying service of 20 years of service, pension should be granted to the Muster Roll worker.
5. In the case of Binapani Das vs. State of Assam and 12 Others, WA 18/2021, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.02.2021, the question arose as to whether pension was to be given to all the Muster Roll workers only w.e.f. 04.12.2018, i.e. the date when the Single Bench had disposed of the case of Sanjita Roy (supra). The Division Bench held that the order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated Muster Roll workers irrespective of their dates of retirements. Further, the Division Bench in Binapani Das (supra) has also stated in the order that as per the Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003, the Government had introduced the requirement of 20 years of continuous service for being entitled for grant of pension. The difficulty arose when the Government vide Notification dated 20.05.2009 decided to deduct 6 years of service period from the total length of service rendered by Muster Roll workers, prior to regularization in service, while calculating the 20 years continous Page No.# 4/4 service period for payment of pension. As stated earlier, the deduction of the initial 6 years of service of a Muster Roll worker was done away with by this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra) and in terms of Binapani Das (supra), the petitioner's father who had apparently completed 23 years 3 months and 29 days as a Muster Roll worker would be entitled to grant of pension. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed payment of arrear pension. Moreover, the petitioner's mother apparently expired prior to the death of the petitioner's father. At the time of petitioner's father death, the petitioner was approximately 30 years of old. As such, there is no question of payment of family pension to the petitioner. The prayer in the writ petition is for payment of arrear pension by the son, who was not entitled to even receive the family pension. The question to be decided is whether arrear pension can be given to petitioner, as the father never claimed pension during his lifetime.
6. List the matter next week to enable the counsels for the respondents to obtain instructions.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant