Thaneswari Roy v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER

20.09.2023

¶1Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that there is a delay of 5374 days in filing the review petition against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Civil Rule No.2828/1994. He submits that Civil Rule No.2828/1994 had been filed by the applicant's husband, on the ground that applicant's husband's dismissal from service was arbitrary. However, during pendency of Civil Rule No.2828/1994, the order dated 31.05.1994 dismissing the applicant's husband from service was withdrawn, vide order dated 02.08.1994 issued by the State respondents. Though the applicant's husband had informed his counsel to withdraw Civil Rule No.2828/1994, the counsel had not withdrawn the same. Civil Rule No.2828/1994 was thereafter dismissed as being devoid of any merit, vide judgment and order dated

21.07.2006.

¶2The applicant's counsel submits that the applicant's husband had been in service for approximately 14 years 3 months and as such, he was entitled to receive proportionate pension in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969. He submits that unless a review of the judgment and order dated

21.07.2006 passed Civil Rule No.2828/1994 is allowed, the applicant would be losing proportionate family pension, which is a right that has accrued to the Page No.# 3/5 applicant.

¶3The counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant's husband expired on 16.10.2021 and the present petition for review has been filed on

08.09.2023. He submits that in view of the reasons stated above, the delay in filing the review should be condoned.

¶4Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there being a delay of approximately 17 years in filing the review petition, that also after the death of the applicant's husband, the condonation of delay application should be rejected.

¶5I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶6The judgment and order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Civil Rule No.2828/1994 states that the applicant's husband was temporarily appointed as a Driver, vide order dated 06.01.1993 and he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 31.05.1994. The challenge made to the dismissal order dated

31.05.1994 ended in failure, as the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was devoid of any merit. The documents annexed to the writ petition (C.R. 2828/1994) show that the order dismissing the applicant's husband as a Driver was withdrawn, vide Office Order dated 02.08.1994. However, the Government of Assam, Implementation of the Assam Accord Department, in its Office Order No. IAA 34/93/43 dated 24.09.2007 released the applicant's husband from service in compliance with the order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Page No.# 4/5 Civil Rule No.2828/1994. The said Office Order also categorically states that the applicant's husband had been appointed on a temporary basis, vide Order No. IAA 44/92/48 dated 06.01.1993.

¶7The judgment and order sought to be reviewed had been passed on

21.07.2006 in Civil Rule No.2828/1994. Subsequent to Civil Rule No.2828/1994, the applicant's husband also filed WP(C) No.259/2008, which had been disposed of, vide order dated 22.02.2008. In the order dated 22.02.2008 passed in WP(C) No.259/2008, this Court had also given the liberty to the applicant's husband to seek review/recall of the order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Civil Rule No.2828/1994 and thereafter to approach the departmental authority in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶8The above orders show that the applicant's husband had been appointed on a temporary basis and was not appointed on a regular basis. As such, there was no question of payment of pension in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969, as pension is to be paid to regular Government employees only.

¶9The above being said, there is no reason given by the applicant, as to why there has been a inordinate delay of 17 years in filing a review against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Civil Rule No.2828/1994. Further, the applicant's husband having been given the liberty to challenge the impugned judgment and order, vide order dated 22.02.2008 passed in WP(C) No.259/2008, there is no reason given by the applicant for coming to this Court Page No.# 5/5 at this late hour. Accordingly, there being no sufficient cause made out for the delay in filing the application for review of the impugned order passed in Civil Rule No.2828/1994, besides there being no merit in the petition, as the applicant's husband was a temporary Driver, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

¶10The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010184102023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/2674/2023o THANESWARIoROYo W/OoLT.oBANAHUoROY,o R/OoKUNDILoNAGAR,oP.O.oANDoP.S.-oBASISTHA,oDIST.-oKAMRUPo(M),o ASSAM,oPIN-o781029. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-o781006. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oIMPLEMENTATIONoOFoASSAMoACCORDoDEPTT. oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006. 3:THEoDEPUTYoSECRETARY oIMPLEMENTATIONoOFoASSAMoACCORDoDEPTT. oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006. 4:SATYENDRAoNATHoDEKA oS/OoSRIoANANTAoDEKA o C/OoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oIMPLEMENTATIONoOFoASSAMoACCORDoDEPTT. oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006o Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA