Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 132 (GAU)

Meherun Nessa Bewa v. State of Assam and Ors.

2015-02-05

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
1. Heard Mr AK Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the wife of late Abdul Zabbar who was serving as a Cadre Secretary under the Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Societies Limited at Goalpara and later on at Dhubri on regular basis and after completion of 18 years of service, he died in harness on 17.10.93. The Govt. of Assam, Cooperation Department issued a Notification dated 5.1.2006 whereby the Government was pleased to allow counting of past services with effect from the date of initial appointment as Cadre Secretary for granting pensionary benefits including DCRG by invoking the provisions of Section 31 (I) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 3. Petitioner's case is that the name of her husband did not appear in the Notification dated 5.1.2006, even though the names of persons who were junior to her husband were reflected in the said Notification. The petitioner approached the respondent No.3 stating that as the Govt. of Assam had provincialised the services of 516 Cadre Secretaries vide Notification No. COOP.118/90/Pt-I/36 dated 22.9.94, the services of her husband were also entitled to be provincialised and, therefore, the pensionary benefits were to be given to the petitioner also. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has stated that services of 516 Cadre Secretaries were provincialised vide Notification dated 22.9.94 and their past services were counted for pensionary benefits including DCRG by invoking the provisions under Rule 31(1) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 with effect from their initial date of joining vide subsequent Notification dated 5.1.2006. However, the petitioner's husband having expired on 17.10.93, his name could not be included in the Notification dated 22.9.94 and, as such, the past services of the petitioner's husband could not be considered for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The Notification dated 5.1.2006 states as follows: “In pursuance of approval of the Cabinet held on 23-12-05 and considering the services rendered under Assam Cadre Management Coop: Society Ltd. prior to provincialisation, the Governor of Assam is pleased to allow counting of past services with effect from their initial date of joining in service as Cadre Secretary in respect of the following Jr. Inspector of Coop: Societies, whose services were provincialised vide Notification No. Coop: 118/90/Pt-I/36, dt. Inspector of Coop: Societies, whose services were provincialised vide Notification No. Coop: 118/90/Pt-I/36, dt. 22-9-94 for granting of pensionary benefits including D.C.R.G etc by invoking the provision under 31(I) of Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969. The Services rendered by the Jr. Inspector of Coop: Societies with effect from their initial date of joining as shown against each shall be treated as Govt. Services for pensionary benefits.” 5. A perusal of the Notification dated 5.1.2006 shows that the past services of Cadre Secretaries were allowed to be counted in respect of Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies whose services were provincialised vide Notification dated 22.9.94 for granting pensionary benefits including DCRG by invoking the provisions under Rule 31(1) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 6. As stated earlier, the petitioner's husband having expired on 17.10.93, his services were not provincialised in terms of the Notification dated 22.9.94. 7. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I find that there was no master-servant relationship between the petitioner's husband and the State respondents prior to his death. Even assuming that there was a master-servant relationship, the said relationship would have ended at the time of death of the petitioner's husband and, as such, the Notification dated 5.1.2006 could not have been made applicable to him. The petitioner's husband died i.e. on 17.10.93 and, therefore, the services of the petitioner's husband as Cadre Secretary could not be provincialised on 22.9.94 as he was no longer in existence. Consequently, the Notification dated 5.1.2006 also cannot be made applicable to the petitioner's husband and, as a result, the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to the pensionary benefits in respect of her deceased husband. 8. In the backdrop of the facts narrated above, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.