DOLLY BORPUJARI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner). Also heard Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 16.6.06 in W. P. (C) 3053/04, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner does not qualify for pension under the second condition of Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as she was not holding any post on substantive and permanent basis. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge by referring to the Proviso to Rule 31 which enables the Governor to relax the rigor of the Rule in individual cases, remitted the claim of the writ petitioner who had rendered 14 years of service under the Assam Official Language (Translation of Central Laws) Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) as the functioning of the Commission was found to be continuing and is expected to continue in foreseeable feature.

(3.) The appellant was appointed as a Language Officer under the Commission constituted by Notification dated 21.7.86, for a period of 3 years or till the continuation of the Commission, whichever is earlier by appointment order dated 8.5.87. Subsequently by promotion order dated 1.9.90 she was appointed on promotion as Sr. Language Officer for a period upto 21.7.91 or till the Commission continues, whichever is earlier. Continuance of appellant's service was ensured by passing of retention order from time to time, for the post held by the appellant and others employees in the Commission. The appellant served in the Commission in this fashion till 1.9.2001 when she was superannuated from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Thereafter she submitted her pension papers for granting of pension. Since no positive response was received, the appellant being aggrieved filed W. P. (C) 3053/04 seeking a direction from the Court for grant of pensionary benefit by contending that 14 years service rendered with the Commission should be considered as eligible for grant of pension. The said claim was opposed by the respondents by contending that the appellant was appointed on contract basis and pension for such contract services are inadmissible under the provisions of Rule 23 (f) of the Rules.