GUWAHATI, India, March 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 30:
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das and Mr. A Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Work Charged workers initially for a fixed period and subsequently they continued to render services till their superannuation without any break. They were appointed on a monthly scale of pay requiring crossing of efficiency bar. The petitioners from their date of initial engagements till superannuation had been discharging their duties which are performed by any regular Employee in Grade-III or Grade-IV posts under the control of the respective Executive Engineers.
3. It is the case projected by the petitioners that they were not appointed against any specific work or project and their services were utilized against works which were regular and perennial in nature. According to the petitioners, they have rendered more than 20 years of continuous services till their dates of superannuation and therefore in terms of the Office Memorandums dated 12.09.1996 and 06.09.2003, all temporary government employees who have retired from service under the Government of Assam fulfilling the criteria of not less than 20 years of continuous service were eligible for pension from 01.09.1982 onwards without the requirement of permanency against permanent post under the Government of Assam for usual pensionary benefits under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1969").
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per the prevailing procedure, the petitioners were recruited and had thereafter continued to render their services as work charged employees till the dates of superannuation. Pursuant to their engagement, the petitioners were transferred from one place to another within the zone and they had rendered their services with dedication and sincerity to the satisfaction of all concerned. The department opened service roll of the petitioners to record the various deposits and increments. Subsequently the petitioners were informed by the department of their respective dates of superannuation. Upon being intimated about their dates of superannuation, the petitioners contacted the relevant offices for their dues as far as pension is concerned, the petitioners were informed that they were not entitled to any pension. Being aggrieved, they preferred a representation dated 23.06.2024 praying for grant of pension.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoKiQEXzWlLKnVUi43swVI23MDc1kVCDQcsc9NsLFp4iv&caseno=WP(C)/5328/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010162542021&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
