Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2280/2025 of SMTI SUNALI DUTTA Vs THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM on 11 August 2026
GAHC010077092025 2026:GAU-AS:11355 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2280/2025 SMTI SUNALI DUTTA W/O SHRI DIPAK KASHYAP RESIDENT OF -CHENIKUTHI HILLS SIDE NABAGRAH ROAD, O.NO.62 P.O AND P.S. CHANDMARI, DIST,KAMRUP(M), ASSAM PIN
GAHC010077092025
2026:GAU-AS:11355
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2280/2025
SMTI SUNALI DUTTA
W/O SHRI DIPAK KASHYAP RESIDENT OF -CHENIKUTHI HILLS SIDE
NABAGRAH ROAD, O.NO.62 P.O AND P.S. CHANDMARI, DIST,KAMRUP(M), ASSAM PIN 3
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT ASSAM SACHIVALAYA,DISPUR-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSM
FINANCE(ESTT-A) DEPARTMENT
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR-6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR 6
4:THE DIRECTOR
CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPTT GOVT OF ASSAM RABINDRA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI 1
5:THE PRINCIPAL L K R B MUSIC COLLEGE
GOVT OF ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
KAMRUP METRO
GUWAHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U C RABHA, MR. P K DAS,MR. S M SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AG (A AND E),SC, FINANCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 12-08-2026
Heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Government counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Accountant General (A & E), representing respondent No. 6.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner claims for release of pension under the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that some of her colleague who were appointed on the same date, has been granted pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist in L.K.R.B. Music College, run by the State of Assam, vide an order dated 19.10.1992. Accordingly, she joined her service on 21.10.1992. The service of the petitioner was extended from time to time and finally, regularized on creation of posts and its approval by the State, vide the order dated 12.12.2006, issued by the Director of Cultural Affairs, Government of Assam, from the date of joining subsequent to the regularization order.
4. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation and after serving for 30 years, has retired on 30.09.2022.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 and subsequently, regularized her service vide the order dated 12.12.2006, the petitioner is entitled to be provided with pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
6. In support of her submission, reliance has been placed to the communication by the Principal of the School, recommending for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
7. Mr. U. C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the similarly situated persons, who were also appointed in the year 1992 having been granted pension under the Old Pension Scheme, the petitioner is also entitled to be provided with the retirement benefits/pension under the Old Pension Scheme as the petitioner has served continuously for more than 30 (thirty) years since 1992.
8. On the other hand, Mr. D. Borah, learned State counsel for the respondent and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General (A & E), submits that the petitioner although might have been allowed to serve as LDA on temporary basis since 1992, the appointment/regularization of the petitioner was made vide an order dated 12.12.2006, which clearly reflects that such appointment/regularization shall be from the date of joining subsequent to the order, which means that the appointment/regularization shall be prospective. It is also submitted that the petitioner deliberately supressed the fact of her appointment/regularization with effect from 12.12.2006 as she has conveniently not annexed her appointment order. It is further submitted that New Pension Scheme has come into effect on 01.02.2005 and the appointment of the petitioner was on 12.12.2006, which clearly reflects that the entitlement of the petitioner would be regulated by New Pension Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim for pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
9. Considered the submissions of the parties and also perused the materials on record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving as LDA since 1992, and she was subsequently appointed/regularized vide an order dated 12.12.2006, reflecting that the appointment shall be with effect from the date of her joining, subsequent to order, which indicates that the appointment/regularization of the petitioner would be prospective in nature. It reveals from the record that the petitioner on being appointed/regularized vide the order dated 12.12.2006 had contributed under the New Pension Scheme without any demur.
11. It appears that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts inasmuch as she has not annexed her appointment order dated 12.12.2006.
12. It is also stated by the learned State Counsel for the respondents that as on 31.03.2024, an amount of Rs.16,19,241/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Forty One) is lying in the NPS account of the petitioner.
13. Having considered the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would be regulated by the New Pension Scheme and not under the Old Pension Scheme as her appointment/regularization was made on 12.12.2006 with effect from the date of her joining subsequent to the order, which clearly indicates that the appointment would be prospective in nature and the New Pension Scheme having been coming into force w.e.f. 01.02.2005. Thus, no relief can be granted as prayed for by the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant