UMESH CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for interference of this Court for redressal of his grievance that despite having adequate qualification in service he has been denied the benefit of pension.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher in Lalit Chandra Deka Girls' M.E. School, Patrapur. Having worked there for about 2 years the petitioner was appointed as Head Master of the High School Section, namely, Lalit Chandra Deka Girls' High School. It is understood that in view of his service as Assistant Teacher in the M.E. School Section he was promoted to the post of Head Master of the High School Section of the School. It appears that the school got adhoc grant w.e.f. 01.01.1984. Both the sections of the school, namely, the ME School and the High School Section were provincialised by 1991. The petitioner retired from the post of Head Master of Lalit Chandra Deka Girls' High School on 31.08.1995. According to the petitioner his service should be counted from 01.02.1985 i.e. his initial appointment in the school for the purpose of retirement benefit and in that event he has served for more than 10 years which entitles him to the benefit of pension. But in the communication dated 06.05.1996 the Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati addressed to the Director, Secondary Education shows the date of appointment of the petitioner as 08.03.1987 and date of retirement as 31.08.1985 and thus the petitioner was shown to have been left with service of merely 8 years 5 months and 23 days. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of such report submitted by Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati he has been deprived from the benefit of pension. Under Section 2(ii) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 date of appointment means in relation to any employee the date on which he joined the service to the School imparting Secondary Education on and from the date of its coming under adhoc system of grants-in- aid. So in that view of the matter the date of appointment of the petitioner cannot be the date of provincialisation and or any other date except the date of his initial appointment or atleast from the date of coming under adhoc system of grants-in-aid. In this case the school received adhoc grant on 01.01.1984 and the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1985 and as such in this case the date of appointment has to be 01.10.1985 itself.

(3.) IT appears that both the Sections subsequently were provincialised on 19.11.1991 separately and thereafter in 1999 both the schools were amalgamated. Even by applying the doctrine of relating back in view of amalgamation the petitioner becomes entitled to the benefit of past service.