High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2319/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
4. Inspite of repeated orders passed by this Court in reference to another order passed on 19.7.2006 in WP(C) No. 3267/2006, by which, under similar circum stances, the period of service rendered under KAAC by another teacher was direct ed to be counted for the purpose of pension, when no clarification was furnished , cost of Rs. 10,000/- followed by another Rs. 10,000/- was imposed as reflected in the order passed on 7.6.2013. Earlier also a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was impose d for non-responsive attitude on the part of the Education Department. 5. In reference to the aforesaid order dated 7.6.2013, by which, in absence of any clarification furnished by the respondent No. 1 inspite of clear directi on of this Court, his personal appearance was directed. In terms of the said ord er, Sri Hemanta Narzary, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department is personally present and is being rep resented by Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. He has fi led an affidavit dated 17.6.2013, in which, it has been stated that although a p roposal was made for counting the service rendered in KAAC, but the same was rej ected by the Pension & Public Grievance Department vide their endorsement dated 27.2.2012. On perusal of the said endorsement, it is found that an observation w as made by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department that the council s ector employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits as they were allowed CPF benefits. The affidavit further states that pursuant to the order passed by thi s Court, family pension has been granted to the petitioner counting the service of the husband of the petitioner from 3.4.1991 to 31.3.2002 as qualifying servic e under the provision of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 6. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the aforesaid earlier o rder of this Court dated 19.7.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 3267/2006. The said case is exactly similar to the present case. In the said case also the question that fell for consideration before the Court was as to whether the service rendered b y the petitioner involved in the said writ petition during the period from 1966 to 1971 under KAAC would count for the purpose of pension. As in the instant cas e, in the said case also the petitioner was under KAAC and he was transferred to a school in Nagaon district (Plan District) in the year 1979. Thereafter, after rendering service upto December, 2003 he had superannuated.
Arguments
Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia , learned Additional Advocate General, Assam representing the Education Departme nt and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Standing Counsel, Pension & Public Grievance, Assa m. The matter relates to family pension. The details of the case have been 2. recorded in various orders passed from time to time. The husband of the petition er retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2002. He was serving as Head Teacher of Molan Nandi Ali L.P. School under the D.I. of Sch ools, Nagaon. After his retirement, although provisional pension was paid, the s ame was stopped after few months. He died on 27.7.2004 without getting the pensi on. Thereafter, it was the turn of the petitioner’s wife i.e. the present petiti oner to get family pension. However, inspite of her repeated approach when the f amily pension was not paid, she filed the instant writ petition. By the time the writ petition was filed, long 10 years had gone by from the date of retirement of her husband on attaining the age of suprannuation. It was only because of per suasion of this Court and constant monitoring of the case, eventually the petiti oner has been paid her family pension counting the service of her husband from 1 991 and to be precise from 3.4.1991. 3. The fact of the matter is that the husband of the petitioner was earlier serving under the KAAC with effect from 6.5.1970 to 2.4.1991, when he was trans ferred to a provincialised school in the district of Nagaon. The respondents hav e finalized the family pension of the petitioner counting the service of the pet itioner’s husband only from 1991, when he joined another provincialised school i n the district of Nagaon, completely obliterating his earlier service period fro m 6.5.1970 to 2.4.1991.
Decision
7. In the said case, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department was dir ected to apprise the Court of the precise stand of the Government in the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had submitted a written note before the Court. On due consideration of the note, th is Court observed that there was no tangible or reasonable basis warranting excl usion of the period of service rendered by the petitioner under the district cou ncil from the purpose of computation of pension. For a ready reference the opera ting part of the said order is quoted below: (cid:28)On due consideration of the note submitted by the director of Elementary Educat ion, it appears that there is no tangible or reasonable basis disclosed which wo uld warrant exclusion of the period of service rendered by the petitioner under the District Council from the purpose of computation of his pension. In fact, ap art from the several correspondences exchanged in the matter without any final c onclusion being reached till date, no other significant fact has been reflected in the note submitted by the Director so as to justify the exclusion of the afor esaid period. On the contrary, in the note submitted by the Director there is a reference to some other cases, which are similarly situated, where period of ser vice rendered under the District council have been taken into account for comput ation of pension. In view of the above I deem it appropriate to close this writ petition at the mo tion stage by directing that pension of the petitioner will now be computed by t aking into account the period of service rendered by him under the District Coun cil and the entitlement of the petitioner to pension will be finalized by all co ncerned within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified c opy of this order. (cid:29) 8. Above apart, I may also gainfully refer to the provisions of the Assam E lementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the Assam Elementary Educa tion (Provincialisation) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981. 9. Section 2 of the Act of 1974 defines recognized school as a school recog nized or deemed to be recognized under the Act. Referring to the then existing S tate Board, Section 2 (n) defines the State Board for Elementary Education (Regi onal Board) for Elementary Education as the Board constituted under the Assam El ementary Education Act, 1968. Section 2 (o) defines Existing Teacher as teachers appointed or deemed to have been appointed by the Government and the State Boar d for Elementary Education under the Assam Elementary Education Act, 1968. Secti on 3 (3) of the Act provides that all teachers of elementary school and pre-prim ary schools maintained by the Regional Boards of Elementary Education constitute d under Section 18 of the Assam Elementary Education Act, 1968 shall be deemed t o be the employees of the State Government. Section 3 (5) (i) provides that all teachers appointed by Regional Board of Elementary Education taken over by the G overnment under Sub-section (3) shall be entitled to such scales of pay and allo wances as admissible to teachers of corresponding rank in the Government institu tions. 10. Rule 6 of the rules of 1981 provides the teachers shall be entitled to p ension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits as admissible to the Government e mployees. The teachers who opt for pension scheme will discontinue their C.P.F., contribution and open fresh G.P.F. account and deposit the amount of their own C.P.F. contribution along with interest accrued thereon into the G.P.F. account so opened. For the purpose of pension the period of service shall be counted fro m the date on which they were qualified to receive the benefit of C.P.F. during the Boards’ regime. 11. The petitioner while was serving under the KAAC was transferred to a pro vincialised school in the district of Nagaon in 1991. He was never apprised that his earlier service would stand altogether obliterated. If the service of the p etitioner’s husband rendered under KAAC is not countable, it is not understood a s to how he could be transferred from KAAC to a provincialised school in the dis trict of Nagaon. Considering all the above aspects of the matter, it is hereby provided t 12. hat the petitioner’s husband was entitled to count the period of service he had rendered under KAAC for the purpose of pension as was ordered by this Court in a nother writ petition being WP(C) No. 3267/2006 referred to above. Accordingly, t he respondents are directed to re-calculate pension and family pension of the pe titioner counting the period of service of her husband, he had rendered under KA AC from 1970 to 1991. Revised family pension shall be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.7.2013. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that beca 13. use of the delay in payment of family pension to the petitioner forcing her to a pproach this Court, she is entitled to get adequate compensation. As noted above , there has been delay of more than 10 years in finalizing the pension case of t he petitioner. It is only because of the constant monitoring of this Court, even tually the petitioner could get her family pension, which was also without count ing the period of service of her husband from 1970 to 1991. This aspect of the m atter has been discussed above. 14. There is no plausible explanation as to the cause of delay. Further as r ecorded in various orders passed by this Court, even the clarification sought fo r by this Court was not forthcoming, for which, on three occasions costs had to be awarded amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each. Considering the matter in its entiret y, I feel it appropriate to award Rs. 1,50,000/- s cost of this proceeding to th e petitioner. It is ordered according. The writ petition is allowed with the cost as indicated above. The amoun 15. t of compensation shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court on or befor e 31.7.2013 and upon such deposit, the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw the same upon proper identification. 16. Personal appearance of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department stands dispensed with, with the hope that thi ngs will improve in future, pension cases will not be delayed and will be finali zed at the least possible time.