Tarani Kanta Ray and 10 Ors v. The State of Assam and 7 Ors. F

ORDER Date : 24-05-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

21.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No. 7372/2021 rejecting the Page No.# 5/7 writ petition preferred by the petitioners/appellants herein seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Learned counsel Mr. S. Islam, representing the appellants has placed reliance on the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 1109/2022 (The State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat affirming the order of the High Court conferring benefits of pension upon the respondents. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Forest Department; Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel representing the Finance Department and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Government counsel and Standing counsel, BTC, have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. They contended that the appellants herein were engaged as Fixed pay employees/Muster Roll workers/Skilled labourers/Casual labourers/Plantation watchers etc. and they never worked on any encadered post so as to be treated as in government service and, thus, they are not entitled to lay claim for pension and other pensionary benefits since they do not satisfy any of the conditions prescribed under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Rules of 1969" for short). They pointed out that in the case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), the facts were totally different because in the said case the respondents had rendered ad hoc services to the State for 30 years, whereas in the present case the appellants were never in ad hoc service but were Muster Roll workers/Casual labourers/ Daily wage labourers in the entire span of duties performed by them. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel representing the respondents on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of State of Assam vs. Upen Das & Ors (Writ Appeal 45/2014) and Ujala Narzary vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (Writ Appeal No. 1/2022 and connected appeals, decided on 13.03.2023). Page No.# 6/7 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and have considered the material available on record. There cannot be two views that in order to qualify for pension and other pensionary benefits, a person must fulfil the conditions as stipulated under Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of 1969, which reads as follows: "31. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: Firstly, the service must be under Government; Secondly, the employment must be substantive and permanent; Thirdly, the service must be paid by Government; Provided that the Governor may, even though either or both of conditions (1) and

(2) above are not fulfilled,

(i) Declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension, and

(ii) In individual cases and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in each case allow service rendered by any officer to count for pension."

The petitioners/appellants herein would have to satisfy all conditions of the Pension Rules of 1969 to be entitled for pension and other pensionary benefits. Admittedly, the appellants herein were working as Muster Roll workers/Casual workers/Daily wage labourers and, hence, they do not satisfy any of the three conditions stipulated in the above Rule so as to lay claim for pension and other pensionary benefits. In the two Division Bench judgments relied upon by the respondents, this Court has clearly held that the service of temporary nature, viz. Service rendered by Muster Roll workers/Casual labourers/Plantation Watchers, does not qualify the person/persons concerned for pension and other pensionary benefits. We have no reason to take a different view of the matter. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioners staking claim for pension and other pensionary benefits under the Page No.# 7/7 Pension Rules of 1969. The writ appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/7 GAHC010120942022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/249/2022o TARANIoKANTAoRAYoANDo10oORS.o S/Oo-oLATEoCHEMRUoRAY,oVILLAGEoANDoP.O-oMALANDUBI,oDIST-oDHUBRI,o ASSAM,oPIN-783334 2:oDABESWARoDAS oS/Oo-oLATEoPASINoAS oVILLAGEo-UDMARIo P.O-oLAKHIGANJ oDIST-oDHUBRI o oPIN-783345 3:oMOZIBARoRAHMAN oS/Oo-oLATEoKASHEMoALIoSK o VILLAGE-oBAGHARCHAR oJHOWDANGA-IIo P.O-oJHOWDANGA oP.S-oMANKACHAR o DIST-oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR o oPIN-783131 4:oABDUSoSATTARoALIoSHEIKH oS/Oo-oLATEoMOHAMMADoALIoSHEIKH o VILLAGEo-DIGHALGAONo P.O-oRUPSHI o DIST-oDHUBRI o PageoNo.#o2/7 oPIN-783331 5:oSADHANAoROY oW/Oo-oLATEoSAMARENDRAoROY o VILLAGEo-oKHERAJoDAOBHANGI o P.O-oRUPSHI oDIST-oDHUBRI o oPIN-783331 6:oDINOBALAoBARMAN oW/Oo-oLATEoBANESWARoMAHATO oVILLAGEo-oLALKURAoPART-Io P.O-oSAHEBGANJ oDIST-oDHUBRI o oPIN-783331 7:oHAMELAoKHATUN oW/Oo-oLATEoHANIFUDDINoSHEIKH o VILLAGE-oBENGERVITAo P.O-oKALAPANI oDIST-oSOUTHoSALMARAoMANKACHAR o oPIN-783135 8:oPIYASUDDINoSHEIKH oS/Oo-oLATEoMOHIRUDDINoSHEIKH oVILLAGE-DARCHUKAo P.O-oSHILAIRPAR oDIST-oDHUBRI o oPIN-783331 9:oAMITAoRAY oW/Oo-oLATEoPRABINoCHANDRAoRAY o VILLAGEoANDo P.O-oMALANDUBI oDIST-oDHUBRI PageoNo.#o3/7 o oPIN-783334 10:oRINAoROY oW/Oo-oJANENoMARAK oVILLAGE-JALDIBAo P.O-oPAGLAHAT oDIST-oDHUBRI o oPIN-783334 11:oRATIMAoBRAHMA oS/Oo-oLATEoSAMARoSINGHoBASUMATHARY o VILLAGEoANDoP.O-oBANNYAGURI o DIST-oKOKRAJHARo oPIN-78333o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo7oORS.oFo REP.oBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,o ENVIRONMENToANDoFORESToDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-06 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oTHEoGOVToOFoASSAM PENSIONoANDoPUBLICoGRIEVANCESoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oTHEoGOVToOFoASSAM FINANCEoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oGHY-06 4:THEoADDITIONALoPRINCIPALoSECRETARY oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oP.OoANDoDISTRICT-oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM oPIN-783370 5:THEoPRINCIPALoCHIEFoCONSERVATOR Page No.# 4/7 OF FOREST AND HOFF ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GHY-37 6:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM CHD BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. P.O AND DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 8:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER PARBATJHORA FOREST DIVISION P.O- PARBATJHORA DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTC PIN-78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA