Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1381 (GAU)

Taheruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam

2018-09-17

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. M. Islam, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel Finance Department appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 6. Although the respondents have not filed affidavit-in-opposition but having regard to the nature of the case as projected by the writ petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The case of the writ petitioner, may briefly be noted at the outset . The petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Secretary on 15.09.1960 in the office of the Hatimoria Gaon Panchayat under Morigaon Zilla Parishad on a fixed monthly remuneration. He was subsequently absorbed in the post of Tax Collector in the said establishment with a certain pay scale w.e.f. 1975. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1992 as Tax Collector, Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat under Morigaon Zilla Parishad but no pension was given to him. The petitioner having rendered more than 32 years of service since his initial appointment, has approached this Court for payment of his pension and other retirement dues including gratuity. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. Islam submits that a number of employees who have rendered their services in various capacities under Panchayat in the State of Assam approached this Court for payment of their pension and other retirement benefits. The case was adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court and consequently, vide a common judgment and order dated 24.03.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 145/2009 amongst others, all the cases related to the claim for pension was disposed of. As per the judgment and order of the Division Bench, the length of service of the Panchayat Employees are to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment for the purposes calculating qualified period in order to be eligible for pension. The decision of the Division Bench was put to challenge in SLP No. 19351-19360/2010 but however, the Apex Court vide Order dated 02.08.2010 dismissed the SLP and in view of dismissal of the SLP, the decision of the Division Bench has attained finality. 4. The decision of the Division Bench was put to challenge in SLP No. 19351-19360/2010 but however, the Apex Court vide Order dated 02.08.2010 dismissed the SLP and in view of dismissal of the SLP, the decision of the Division Bench has attained finality. 4. Consequently, the direction of the Division Bench was complied with by the respondent authorities through notification dated 22.12.2014 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department. Following the notification, the petitioner was given his provisional pension vide Office Order dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam. 5. While the petitioner was expecting the respondent authorities to finalise his pension, a communication dated 18.10.2016 was made by the Finance and Accounts Officer in the establishment of Director of Pension, Assam to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sonitpur. As per the said communication two deficiencies were found in the service of the petitioner and for which reason his pension could not be finalised. The deficiency as pointed out in the said communication may be extracted below :- "1. Service confirmation is required for less than 20 years qualifying service. Otherwise H.O.O. may obtain the P & PG dept. Approval for relaxation. 2. Service confirmation order is wanting." 6. As noticed, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department vide notification dated 22.12.2014 relaxed Rule 31 of Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969 enabling the Panchayat employees of the State who have rendered more than 10 years of service but less than 20 years of government service to be eligible and entitled for pension. Relaxation was made by invoking the provisions of Rule 235 of the same Rules. From the chart annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-9, the name of the petitioner is found against serial No. 233 and his service particulars have also been indicated. Undisputably on his retirement, the petitioner had rendered 17 years 3 months and 29 days of service. Therefore, what can be noticed is that petitioner even without confirmation of his service has served more than 17 years and he is covered by the notification dated 22.12.2014 which was issued pursuant to the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, what can be noticed is that petitioner even without confirmation of his service has served more than 17 years and he is covered by the notification dated 22.12.2014 which was issued pursuant to the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court. That being the position, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner his pension by pointing out the deficiencies as mentioned in the communication dated 18.10.2016. 7. It may also be noticed that in a case of similar nature the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 4873/2017 as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner had allowed the writ petition. 8. In that view of the matter, I find merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the respondent authorities will be required to process and finalise the pension of the petitioner as per law and as expeditiously as possible at any rate, not later than the period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. It is needless to observe herein that while finalising the pension of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall keep in mind the direction passed by this Court in writ appeal No. 145/2009 as well as the notification issued by the Pension and Public Grievances Department on 17.03.2011. 9. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.