KABIRAM RAJBANGSHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is covered by judgment dated 26.8.93 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 694/90 (Mahimuddin Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam and ors) wherein this Court directed that the earlier period as Muster roll labourer shall be counted as qualifying service period for the purpose of pension only in order to give benefit to such an employee. In the instant case also the petitioner joined as Muster roll worker on 1.1.58 and he continued in that capacity till 1.3.84, but on 1.3.84 the petitioner was regularised as Gr. IV employee vide order dated 30.6.83. He retired from service on 31.12.90 and the total period of service is more than 32 years. Total regularised period of service is only 6 years 9 months. On 20.12.92 an order was passed by the Government providing all benefits of Grade-IV employees to regularise Muster Roll workers vide Annexure-E to the writ application. Annexures-D and E are quoted below :

(2.) Pension for the Assam Government employees are governed by Assam Services (Pensions) Rules, 1969. Rule 31 provides for conditions of qualifying service. It is quoted below:

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the Government Advocate that the employment of the petitioner is not substantive and permanent before 1984 and as such he is not entitled to pension. The only bar for not granting pension as will be evident is Rule 153, But that bar also does not apply in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as at the time of retirement, the service of the petitioner was duly regularised. But only condition is that he does not complete the qualifying period as required by Rules 96 and 97. But even for such a contingency proviso to Rule 31 provides as quoted above that the Government may make declaration of any kind of service to be counted towards pension. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner deserves such a treatment, otherwise it will be sheer injustice done to the petitioner as pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara and Ore. Vs. Union of India) where in the Supreme Court pointed out that the payment of pension in a welfare state is a socio-economic justice. Justice measures providing relief when advancing the age gradually, irrevokably impires the capacity to stand upon own feet. In paragraphs 20 and 22 the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows: