NAOMAN CH KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Sri Naoman Chandra Kalita, has prayed for a direction, on the respondents to release his monthly pension forthwith along with the interest on the said pension amount coupled with a prayer for quashing the impugned office letter bearing No. PEN/ 4/PR/R/PWD/160/99 dated Nil issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and the order dated 24.2.2000 bearing No. PPG(P) 106-97-12 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance Department, Dispur, Guwahati, (Annexure-C to the writ petition) by contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as a Muster Roll worker under Public Works Department, Assam, in November, 1965 and his services were regularised as such Muster Roll Worker in the year 1984, and he retired on 30.11.1994 after rendering 29 years of service under the said Department.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Senior Accounts Officer of the office of Accountant General, (A&E), Assam, issued the impugned office letter as in Annexure-B to the writ petitioner thus denying the pension to the petitioner, and apart from that in terms of another impugned order dated 24.2.2000 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension & Grievance Department, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Dispur, was to stop payment of pension to the petitioner on the main ground that the petitioner had rendered a net "qualifying service" of 9 years 11 months and 28 days only which was short by 2 days' qualifying service for the prescribed 10 years for becoming eligible to regular monthly pension as per the provisions of rule 111 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, ignoring the period service for 29 years rendered by the petitioner as Muster Roll worker.

(3.) The State-respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition resisting the case of the petitioner.