SAIYED ALI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel representing respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 7. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel appears for respondent no.4, whereas Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned counsel appears for respondent nos.5 and 6. Mr. Parasar submits that he has instructions from Mr. R. Talukdar, Standing Counsel to appear on behalf of the said respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in Public Health Engineering, Dhubri Division. In course of time his service was regularized and he eventually retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.01.2015. On his claim for pension, a letter dated 03.06.2016 was issued from the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam by which the concerned officials in the Public Health Engineering Department as well as the petitioner were informed that both pension and DCRG are not payable on ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 (twenty) years of net qualifying service after deducting 6 (six) years of Muster Roll period. In the said letter it was indicated that there is a shortfall in service by 2 (two) months and 7 (seven) days, which can be condoned only by the Governor by invoking the provisions of Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

(3.) Submission made on behalf of the petitioner that pension cannot be denied on ground indicated in the impugned letter dated 03.06.2016 in view of the clear decision rendered on the relevant issue in the case of Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others , reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805.