Gauhati High Court
Kachimuddin Sheikh @ Md. Kachimuddin Sk vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 4 January, 2019
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010286122018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 6/2019
1:KACHIMUDDIN SHEIKH @ MD. KACHIMUDDIN SK.
S/O LATE TEPA SHEIKH
R/O VILL- SREEGRAM
P.O. SALKOCHA
DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM
PIN - 783348.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PHE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND P.G. DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
ASSAM
GUWAHATI
-6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI -36.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
GUWAHATI-29.
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (PHE)
NALBARI CIRCLE
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN - 781335.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
DHUBRI DIVISION
DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783301.
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 04-01-2019 Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. D Nath, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.4. The relief claimed in this petition is for grant of pensionary and other retirement benefits to the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/4 The petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll worker in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHE Division on 01.03.1989 and after his service was regularized as Khalasi in the same office in the year 2005, he rendered his service on regular basis and retired from service on 29.02.2012. However, he has not been granted any pensionary and other retirement benefits till date inspite of approaching the authorities in this regard. Though the petitioner has been given the terminal benefits, has not been given the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities did not release the pensionary benefits by deducting 6 years of initial service prior to regularisation at the time of computing the qualifying service, which however, has been held by this Court as illegal in a decision rendered in WP ( C) No. 1089 of 2015 which was disposed of on 04.05.2018, which position is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents.
In that view of the matter, petitioner will be entitled to count the entire service rendered by the petitioner after entering service till his retirement for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for grant of pension. Since the petitioner has already rendered 22 years 11 months and 28 days, he is entitled to the pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the above position. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after verifying his service records and making necessary adjustment of terminal benefits already granted to the petitioner, which exercise shall completed within 3(three) months from today.
JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant