Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010118472025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/188/2025 MD HUSSAIN ALI @ HUSSEN ALI S/O LATE HELASA SEKH, VILL. BARKALIAJHAR, P.O. PATHARUGHAT, P.S. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT. ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASTC PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781008 5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ASTC TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 7:THE STATION SUPERINTENDENT ASTC MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER MANGALDAI TREASURY DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 78412 For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. K. R. Patgiri, Advocate For respondent(s) : Ms. M. D. Bora, Advocate Mr. A. Chamuah, Advocate – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7. The appellant was initially appointed as a Grade-IV employee in the State Transport Department on 31.03.1967. Later, he was permanently absorbed in the Assam Road Transport Corporation and was also promoted to the post of Page No.# 3/5 Mechanical Grade-III, on which post he served till his superannuation on 31.07.2002. The appellant had completed more than 35 years of service. However, when he was not given family pension benefits, he approached the authorities. At one point of time, a proposal in favour of the appellant was sent to respondent No. 1, but it was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2022. This rejection of the proposal for grant of family pension to the appellant was questioned by him before the learned Single Judge vide WP(C) No. 594/2023. A composite judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions including WP(C) 594/2023 filed by the appellant, vide judgment dated 01.03.2025, which is under challenge in the present appeal. The contention of the appellant is that his service history, entitlement to pension and his repeated prayers made before the authorities have not been properly considered. The appellant is also aggrieved by the learned Single Judge not having intervened for getting him the benefits of family pension which, according to him, he is entitled to. The Assam State Road Transport Corporation was incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1950”). Section 34(1) of the Act of 1950 provides that the State Government may, after consultation with the Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by it, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees and the reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. Exercising such powers under Section 34(1) of the Act of 1950, referred to above, the Government of Assam issued a notification dated 31.03.1970 with Page No.# 4/5 respect to recruitment, conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees, who stood transferred to the Corporation. Clause (1) of the notification clearly mandates that the permanent employees and the temporary staff of the Corporation, who have completed 5 years of continuous services in the Corporation on or before 30.03.1970, would be entitled to the benefit of their previous service under the Government for the purpose of leave, pension, pay, seniority and other service benefits. The temporary staff who have not completed 5 years of continuous service on or before 30.03.1970 under the government, would be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Government for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave but not pensionary benefits. The appellant was absorbed in the Corporation only in the year 1977 and therefore does not fall in the category of persons who would be entitled to the benefit of their service with the government before being absorbed in the Corporation. The appellant’s service with the government was counted for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave. However, in accordance with the Notification of the government issued in exercise of powers under Section 34(1) of the Act of 1950, no pensionary benefit was available to him. The learned Single Judge, taking this aspect into consideration, rejected the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly has submitted that under the Assam Pension Rules, the appellant would be entitled for family pension and such right cannot be overridden by a Circular of the government. This argument has been noted but only to be rejected for the reason that the Circular in question has been notified under the powers conferred under Page No.# 5/5 Section 34(1) of the Act of 1950, which has statutory force. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned in this appeal and therefore, we dismiss this appeal but without any order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant