RANJAN PRASAD BORTHAKUR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-16. RANJAN PRASAD BORTHAKUR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/3 GAHC010175582020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5306/2020 RANJAN PRASAD BORTHAKUR S/O LATE SURENDRA NATH BORTHAKUR, RESIDENT OF WARD NO, 3, PO AND PS DERGAON, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785614 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT GUWAHATI DIVISION ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 Page No. # 2/3 6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN O R D E R 16. 12. 2020 Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. M. D. Borah, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 4; Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. Having regard to the subject-matter of the case and as agreed to by the counsel or the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the Motion stage. At the outset, Mr. Baruah submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 04. 12. 2018, passed in WP(C)/1089/2015, whereby at paragraph 31 thereof it has been held that continuous rendering of service as a Muster Roll Worker is to be taken into consideration while determining the qualifying period of service of 20 years for the purpose of pension, without making any deduction.
In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner has completed 25 years 10 months and 26 days from the date of initial appointment on contractual basis until the date of his superannuation i. e. 28. 02. 2018 as a regular Muster Roll Worker. Retirement benefits having been denied by deducting the initial 6(six) years of his service as a Muster Roll Worker, the petitioner is Page No. # 3/3 before this Court.
Without further ado, and having regard to the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C)/1089/2015, followed by a series of decisions where the said judgment has been relied upon, particularly in WP(C)/3466/2020, this writ petition is not detained for adjudication any longer and stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities in the Inland Water Transport Department; the Pension and Public Grievances Department; the Finance Department and the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam to process the pensionary claim of the petitioner and finalize the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4(four) months from today. Petitioner is permitted to furnish a certified copy of this order to the authority/Department mentioned above, for their doing the needful in terms of the directions above. Needless to say that whatever amount has been paid to the petitioner by way of terminal gratuity, the same shall be appropriately adjusted from his retirement dues.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.