GUWAHATI, India, May 22 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 22:

1. Heard Ms. Dimpi Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. D. S. Neog, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 & 6.

2. As consented to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present appeal is being taken-up for final consideration and is being disposed of by this order.

3. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)2943/2019, limiting the pension receivable by the appellant w.e.f. 04.12.2018, and not from the date of his superannuation which had so occasioned on 30.09.2015.

4. The appellant, herein, was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in Morigaon Sub-Division of the Irrigation Department w.e.f. 01.12.1992. The service of the appellant was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 and he was permitted to draw his pay and allowances in the scale of pay prescribed with effect from the date of his such regularization. The appellant, herein, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from his service w.e.f. 30.09.2015.

5. In terms of the policy decision in place at the relevant point of time when the appellant, herein, had proceeded on superannuation, service rendered by a Muster Roll Worker while being permissible to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for quantification of pension and pensionary benefits; a period of 6(six) years of such muster roll service rendered by the employee, was required to be deducted. Although the appellant, herein, had, on the date of his superannuation, completed more than 22 years and 10 months of service, both as a Muster Roll Worker and as a regularized employee, on deduction of 6(six) years from the Muster Roll period of service so rendered by the appellant, herein, his service having fallen below the requisite 20(twenty) years, he was only authorized a terminal gratuity by the Accountant General(A&E), Assam, and was denied his pension and other pensionary benefits.

6. Person similarly situated like the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & ors.], assailing the decision of the authorities towards deduction of 6(six) years from the service rendered as a Muster Roll Worker prior to regularization of such service for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for authorizing pension and pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment & order, dated 04.12.2018, was pleased to allow the said writ petition being WP(c)1089/2015, by holding that the deduction of 6(six) years from the service rendered by a Muster Roll Worker while calculating 20(twenty) years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable and fair. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service rendered by the petitioner, therein, as a Muster Roll Worker and if such service meets the benchmark of 20(twenty) years without any deduction, therefrom; the benefit of pension should be made available to her.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqHAUAMkmpVpxRD%2BGH00W0CrytuBlZAY4BkF9BEEwIzNo&caseno=WA/140/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010167192024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.