THANESWAR HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. As the petitioner has been [HN/ PKT] denied his service pension after retirement from service on attaining of his age of superannuation on 31.1.1993 by the official respondents concerned, the petitioner approached this court with this writ petition by contending interalia, that he was allowed to officiate several times as graduate teacher and the total period of such officiation was 4 years 2 months and he was also given incremental benefits for the said officiating period as per related FR 22(c) of Rs and SRs vide related office order bearing Memo No. A-6/14/82/Pt.II/428-430, dated 2)1.5.1989 issued by the Inspector of Schools, J.D.C., Jorhat. In pursuance to a related office order/ letter bearing No. OMSC-13/77/282 dated 7.2.89 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, his date of annual increment was also advanced taking into consideration his officiating periodrendered by him. Though the pension papers were submitted by the petitioner to the appropriate authority, his case was objected by the office of the Director of pension, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 inasmuch as, the Director of Pension, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati, the respondent No. 4 herein urged the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat, Assam and the: authority concerned that the petitioner was allowed to draw his salary @ Rs. 385/- per annum as on 1.9.1975 with D.N.I. 1.6.76 which is not admissible and the excess drawal in this regard upto date of petitioner's retirement is to be assessed for recovery. The Director of Pension, Assam, the 4th respondent herein also recommended for review of the fixation of pay of the writ petitioner which was once fixed at Rs. 385/- with D.N.I, at Rs. 370/- vide, his related office letters dated 11.12.97 and 27.8.98 as seen in the documents marked as Annexure B & C to the writ petition. In this way, the matter pertaining to the service pension of the writ petitioner has been delayed. However, the Inspector of Schools, J.D.C., Jorhat vide, his letter dated 23.2.99 bearing No.E-8/290/93/251 as in Annexure-D to the writ petition, clarified the controversy and highlighted the fact that the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 325+ Rs. 60 = Rs. 385/- on 1.9.1975 and NDI was advanced by two months and the same was made as per order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara vide, his letter bearing No. GMEC- 13/77/232 dated 7.2.89 under FR 22(c) proviso IV which was in force at the relevant time. According to Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, despite the existence of the clarification made by the authority concerned namely, the Inspector of Schools, JDC, Jorhat, the Director of Pension, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati did not release the service pension of the writ petitioner thus, putting the petitioner under hardship and, as such, necessary order and direction may be made from the end of this court in this regard.

(2.) Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents made a prayer for allowing him to get instructions from the appropriate authority as he did not get any instruction in the matter. Mention may be made at this stage thus, recalling the earlier order dated 27.9.2000 passed by this court and, by virtue of the said order, the respondents were directed to examine the claim of the petitioner and release the provisional of final pension to the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. In my considered view, the existence of this order is known to the official respondents and, apart from that, on 26.4.2001, the learned Govt. Advocate sought time to enable the learned Govt Advocate to receive instructions from the official respondents. Suffice is made to reject the prayer of the learned Govt. Advocate in view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) In the instant case, a government employee, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1993 and now we are having May, 2001 and, as such, for the last so many years, the writ petitioner has been denied his legal right to have the service pension. It is well settled that pension is no more bounty and it is the personal property of a retired employee which cannot be denied by anybody and, the matter should not be delayed and it should be disposed of expeditiously as a retired employee has the only means for his survival with the little or handsome service pension benefits. At this stage, I hereby recalled a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Deokinandan Prasad, petitioner V. State of Bihar and others, respondents reported in AIR 1984 SC 1560 wherein, the Apex Court held thus: