KAMALA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEING
LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-66
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 23,2018

Kamala Chakravarty Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 4 Ors Being Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel who appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. C Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Accountant General, Assam.
(2.) The petitioner is the wife of one Mr. Nagendra Nath Chakraborthy who served as Moharar under the establishment of the respondent No.4 since 01.04.1958. The said employee on account of certain mental disorder had to take leave w.e.f. 01.12.1974 upto 02.01.1975. Thereafter, on the same ground, he availed for leave w.e.f. 03.01.1975 to 10.01.1975. However, as the health condition of the employee did not permit his joining back to service, he remained absent w.e.f. 11.01.1975 uptill his attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1993. The said employee unfortunately expired on 02.01.2015. Thereafter, his wife i.e. the writ petitioner approached the respondent No.4 for his monthly pension on 30.12.2002 and vide communication dated 24.06.2002, the respondent No.4 submitted the pension papers of the employee concerned to the respondent No. 5 for necessary action. However, as the period of absence of the employee having not been regularized to process the pension of the late employee, the respondent No.5 vide communication dated 20.11.2003 sought clarification from the respondent No.4 with a request to re-submit the pension papers in complete shape. Against the clarification sought for by the respondent No.5, the Chief Engineer , PWD (Road) (respondent No.3) forwarded the pension papers to the State Government in the Public Works Department vide communication dated 16.11.2004 under Memo No. CEE/88/2003/53-A. But as no decision was taken by the State respondents concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
(3.) Against the writ petition, the respondents arrayed have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. However, the learned counsels appearing for the State as well as for the Accountant General submit that considering the case projected by the writ petitioner, Court may pass appropriate directions. It may be noticed that the petitioner is an old lady of 80 years who has approached this Court for pension as may be entitled to the employee concerned in view of his serving as Moharar under the establishment of the respondent No.4. The employee concerned in order to be eligible for pensionary benefits admittedly under the relevant pension rules requires continuity in service. As can be seen, on account of his health condition, the employee remained absent from duty by taking leave and subsequently without leave. The period for which the employee remained absent can definitely be considered by the respondent authorities by regularizing the same as may be permissible under the law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.