High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6188/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Ms. R. T. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Mr. A. Chetry, lear ned Standing Counsel, Pension and Public Grievance Department, Assam appears for respondent No. 2 and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant Genera l, Assam appears for respondent No. 5. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the period of service r endered by her husband as Muster Roll Worker for the purpose of pension and ther eafter to pay her the due family pension, both arrear and current. Case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Ganu Munda was engaged a s Muster Roll Worker in the North Lakhimpur Road Division, PWD on 12.07.1966. Hi s service was regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1984. He retired from service on 25.11.19 91 and expired on 15.05.2005. If his service is counted from the date of engagem ent as Muster Roll Worker, he had rendered total period of service of 25 years 4 months 13 days. However, if his service is counted from the date of regularizat ion i.e. from 01.03.1984, he had rendered total period of regular service of 7 y ears 8 months 24 days. A Government servant is entitled to have pensionary benefits if he compl etes 10 years of regular service. In the instant case, though the petitioner’s h usband had completed more than 20 years of continuous service, he was not paid p ension on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of regular service i.e., after regularization. Government of Assam framed a scheme to provide pension to retired work c harged employees. Pensionable service for this category of employees is 3 years after date of entry. Thus, while work charged employees are given pensionary benefit on relax ed condition, in case of Muster Roll Worker, 10 years of complete and continuous service is required after regularization to be entitled to receive pension, whi ch is discriminatory.
Facts
Aggrieved by non-payment of family pension, petitioner has filed the pre sent writ petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, stand taken is that service of the petitioner’s husband was regularized on 01.03.1984. From 01.03.1984 till the date of retirement on 25.11.1991, his total regular se rvice period was 7 years 8 months and 24 days which did not conform to qualifyin g service under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 as because a Government servant is entitled to have pensionary benefit only if he has completed 10 year s of regular service. The service rendered by petitioner’s husband from 12.07.19 66 to 29.02.1984 cannot be considered as qualifying service towards pension sinc e it was not against substantive permanent post.
Legal Reasoning
Examining the provision of Rule 31, particularly the proviso thereto, in the context of claim for pension by Muster Roll Worker, this Court in Kabiram R ajbongshi (supra) held as under:- (cid:28)4. Keeping this background of law in mind. I allow this writ application and di rect that the petitioner shall be entitled to pension and for that purpose, the authority is directed to make necessary declaration as provided under proviso to Rule 31 as quoted above. This declaration shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order and the pension of the petitioner shall be computed according to his entitlement. (cid:29) Considering the present case in the light of Kabiram Rajbongshi (supra), the Court is of the view that a similar direction is called for. Accordingly, Commissioner and Special Secretary, PWD (Roads), Government of Assam is directed to pass appropriate order under proviso to Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 declaring the service rendered by petitione r’s husband Late Ganu Munda as qualifying service for pension. Such a declaratio n shall be made within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a c ertified copy of this order. After such declaration is made, the pension papers of the petitioner alo ng with such declaration shall be forwarded to the Accountant General (A & E), A ssam to enable the said authority to finalize the pension proposal of the petiti oner, which shall be done within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of rece ipt of the proposal by the Accountant General (A & E), Assam.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is a fi t case where the Government can make a declaration under proviso to Rule 31 of t he Pension Rules declaring the service rendered by the petitioner’s husband as t he qualifying service for pension. She has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kabiram Rajbangshi Vs State of Assam and Ors. rep orted in 1997 (1) GLT 589 and submits that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Kabiram Rajbongshi (supra). Learned Standing counsel for PWD, Pension and Public Grievance Departmen t, Assam and Accountant General fairly submit that in the facts and circumstance s of the case, Court may consider passing a similar order as in Kabiram Rajbangs hi (supra). Rule 31 of the Pension Rules reads as under:- (cid:28)31. Conditions to qualifying service- The service of an officer does not qualif y for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: Firstly, the service must be under Government; Secondly, the employment must be substantive and permanent; Thirdly, the servant must be paid by Government: Provided that the Governor may, even though either or both of conditions (1) and (2) above are not fulfilled,- declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted ca (i) pacity shall qualify for pension, and (ii) in individual cases and subject to such conditions as he may think fit t o impose in each case allow service rendered by an officer to count for pension. (cid:29)