Gauhati High Court Mandates Recalculation of Pension: “Full Service Tenure from Initial Appointment to Superannuation Must Be Considered for Pensionary Benefits”

Court’s Decision:

The Gauhati High Court ruled that the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits must be recalculated by counting the entire service tenure from May 1, 1957, to September 30, 1997, as qualifying service. The court directed the respondents to issue a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) within three months of receiving the certified order. Failure to comply would result in the arrears carrying an interest of 6% per annum.

Facts:

1. Initial Appointment: The petitioner joined as Secretary of the Khatowal Primary Panchayat on May 1, 1957.
2. Provincialization of Service: His service was provincialized on October 1, 1991, under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999.
3. Superannuation: He retired on September 30, 1997, as Secretary of Purani Gudam Gaon Panchayat under the Nagaon Zilla Parishad.
4. Disputed Pension Calculation:
   • The petitioner’s pension was calculated considering only 22 years, 3 months, and 23 days of service, effectively excluding 18 years, 1 month, and 6 days of his service.
   • This exclusion was based on the respondent’s interpretation of “qualifying service” under the Act, limiting it to periods served in sanctioned posts or posts with a pay scale.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner’s entire service period from May 1, 1957, to September 30, 1997, qualifies for pension computation.
2. How the terms “date of appointment” and “qualifying service” should be interpreted under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner contended that his entire service period from his initial appointment on May 1, 1957, to his superannuation on September 30, 1997, should be considered for pension computation.
2. He relied on the judgment in State of Assam & Anr. v. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi, which established that “qualifying service” should include the period from the initial date of appointment.
3. The exclusion of part of his service violated the precedent set by the Division Bench in Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondents argued that only service in sanctioned posts or posts with a pay scale should count as qualifying service.
2. They asserted that the petitioner’s pension was correctly calculated under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, and did not require any revision.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, focusing on the following terms:

• “Appointed Day”: The date when the Act came into force (October 1, 1991).
• “Date of Appointment”: The date when an employee joined the Panchayat service.
• “Employee”: A person employed against a sanctioned post.

The court noted that the legislative intent, as interpreted in Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi, was to recognize the continuity of service from the initial date of appointment, irrespective of provincialization or sanctioned posts.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied heavily on the Division Bench ruling in State of Assam & Anr. v. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi, which held:

• The term “date of appointment” refers to the date of initial entry into Panchayat service.
• Pensionary benefits should be calculated based on the full service tenure, including periods before provincialization. This precedent was upheld by the Supreme Court, making it binding on the High Court.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Continuity of Service: The court affirmed that the petitioner’s service from May 1, 1957, to September 30, 1997, constituted continuous employment in the Panchayat, as there was no dispute about the service particulars.
2. Violation of Precedent: The court found the respondent’s exclusion of part of the petitioner’s service from pension computation to be a direct violation of the binding judgment in Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi.
3. Notification Clarification: The court noted that the state government’s notifications dated March 17, 2011, and December 22, 2014, explicitly recognized service continuity from the date of initial appointment for pensionary benefits.

Conclusion:

The court held that:

1. The petitioner’s qualifying service for pension calculation must include the entire tenure from May 1, 1957, to September 30, 1997.
2. The existing PPO must be revised, and a fresh PPO must be issued reflecting this recalculation.
3. The arrears must be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be levied.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the principle of recognizing continuous service for pensionary benefits, setting a crucial precedent for similarly placed employees under the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring adherence to established legal principles and protecting employee rights.

Also Read – Uttarakhand High Court: “Provision of Appellate Opportunity Mandatory Before Demolition; Cantonment Board Agrees to Provide Resolution and Delay Demolition Pending Appeal”