Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 16 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010134392024
2025:GAU-AS:7992
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3473/2024
SATISH DAS
S/O- LATE ROHINI KUMAR DAS, R/O- VILL.- UDHIAGURI, P.S. SALBARI,
P.O. SALBARI, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN- 781318.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPURGUWAHATI-6.
4:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSAM PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301.
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER DISPUR TREASURY GUWAHATI-6.
8:THE TREASURY OFFICER BARPETA TREASURY BARPETA DIST. ARPETA
ASSAM PIN- 781301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS CHITRALEKHA DAS,MS KBARMAN,MS.
D. DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, P AND R.D.
Page No.# 2/9 :::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of Judgment : 16.06.2025 Judgment & order(Oral) Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents. Also A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 3, 7 and 8.
2. As projected in the writ petition, Rohini Kumar Das (father of the petitioner) was appointed as Road Moharar of 45 No. Pulsliguri Gaon Panchayat under the erstwhile Barpeta Mahakuma Parishad with effect from 01.08.1960. The services of the petitioner was regularized vide an order dated 09.04.1983 with effect from 01.07.1981. Said Rohini Kumar Das on reaching the age of superannuation proceeded on retirement with effect from 28.02.1998. Said Rohini Kumar Das passed away on 30.05.2006.
3. Upon the demise of said Rohini Kumar Das, his wife Saraswati Das (mother of the petitioner) approached the respondent authorities for processing the due retirement benefits receivable by her husband in connection with the services rendered by him. Although, the processing of the pension proposal was undertaken, the same could not be released during the life time of the wife of late Rohini Kumar Das in as much as she had passed away on 04.01.2022.
Page No.# 3/9
4. The petitioner herein being the son of late Rohini Kumar Das, thereafter pursued the matter with the respondent authorities for receiving the life time arrears with regard to the pension receivable by his father late Rohini Kumar Das with effect from March, 1998 to May, 2006 and the arrears of the family pension receivable by his deceased mother with effect from June, 2006 to 04.01. 2022. No action having been taken by respondent authorities in this matter, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.
5. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has placed before this Court the instruction received by him from the Departmental authorities. A perusal of said instruction would go to reveal that the Departmental authorities had admitted the fact that Rohini Kumar Das had joined his services with effect from 01.08.1960. However, it was contended that he had received his remuneration in the scale of pay with effect from 01.07.1981 only and had retired on 28.02.1998. Basing on such particulars of the petitioner, it was contended that pension and other pensionary benefits were denied to him in as much as w.e.f. 01.07.1981 he had rendered a qualifying service of 16 years, 7 months 27 days and the same being below 20 years, he was held to be not entitled to pension. The services rendered by late Rohini Kumar Das with effect from 01.07.1981 was only reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining his qualifying service for pension, while the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1960 to 30.06.1981 was held to be non- qualifying service for pension, while the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1960 to 30.06.1981 was held to be non qualifying service for pension.
Page No.# 4/9
6. It was further projected by the respondents that late Rohini Kumar Das not being entitled to receive pension, his family would also not being entitled to receive family pension.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials on record.
8. The facts as noticed herein above are not disputed. It is to be noticed that late Rohini Kumar Das had continued in his services w.e.f. 01.08.1960 till the date of his superannuation i.e. till 28.02.1998. The Assam Panchayat Employees Provincialisation Act, 1999 was so enacted by the State Govt. to provide provincialisation of services of employees working in the Panchayat in all level under Assam Panchayet Act, 1994. The said Act of 1999 was brought into force with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 01.10.1991. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner having been in service as on 01.10.1991, his service would also be deemed to have been provincialsied under the Provision of the Act of 1994. The fact that the service the petitioner was provincialised in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1994 is also not disputed by the respondent authorities.
9. 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 the Panchayat. The provisions of 2(d) of the said Act of 1999, defines the term "employees" to mean a person in the employment of Panchayat against a regularly sanctioned post.
Page No.# 5/9
10. The Panchayat employees not being granted, the pension and pensionary benefits upon 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. v. 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.
11. 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 employees, the date on which, he/she had joined the service of a Panchayat Raj Institution. 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 pensionary benefits.
12. In view of the said conclusions; the Division Bench of this Court had vide the judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, passed in WA No. 145/200, held, as follows:
Page No.# 6/9 "........................ 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."
13. 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 the pension and other pensionary benefits to provincialized Panchayat employees and also the period reckonable as qualifying service for computation of such pension and pensionary benefits.
14. 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 entry 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 on being authorized a scale of pay with due increments.
15. The said position was accepted by the respondent authorities and the Page No.# 7/9 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.
16. 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, would mean the "date of appointment", which is nothing but 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.
17. As noticed hereinabove, late Rohini Kumar had initially joined in the services of the Panchayati Raj Institution as a Road Maharar with effect from 01.08.1960 and accordingly applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra) as well as the Notification dated 17.03.2021 to the facts involved in the proceeding, the qualifying service of late Rohini Kumar Das has to be so reckoned with effect from 01.08.1960 and not from any date pursuant to that. It is reiterated that the date of joining of late Rohini Kumar Das as a Road Maharar of 45 No. Pulsiguri Gaon Panchayat is not disputed by the respondent authorities in the present proceeding.
Page No.# 8/9
18. In view of the conclusions drawn above, and it also having been concluded that the qualifying service for computing of pensionary benefits in respect of said Ruhini Kumar Das i.e. father of the petitioner is required to be reckoned with effect from 01.08.1960 and not from the date pursuant thereto, late Rohini Kumar Das is found to have the requisite qualifying service for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits.
19. In view of the above position, the respondent authorities are directed to process the pension proposal in respect of late Rohini Kumar Das by computing his qualifying service by reckoning his service from the date of his initial joining as Road Moharar in 45 No. Pulsiguri Gaon Panchayat w.e.f. 01.08.1960. On such proposal being so prepared, the same be forwarded to the Director of Pension, Assam for disbursement of the pension. Both Rohini Kumar Das and his wife having passed away, the pension proposal now directed to be so prepared would be in respect of the life time arrears of pension/ family pension required to be authorized to them and the same would now be released to the petitioner herein.
20. The respondents No. 1 and 4 shall process the pension proposal in terms of the directions passed herein above, and submit the same to the Director of Pension, Assam, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
21.The Director of Pension, Assam on receipt of the pension proposal from the respondents No. 1 and 4, shall scrutinize the same and on finalization of the same, issue the final Pension Payment Order(PPO) within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of such proposal from the Page No.# 9/9 Panchayat and Rural Development Department.
22. It is further provided that, in the event the arrears as receivable by the petitioner is not released to him, within the outer limit of 3(three) months as prescribed hereinabove, the amount, would carry an interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of completion the 3 (three) months period granted for release of the arrears to the petitioner herein.
23. With the above observations and direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant