Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010006102019 2026:GAU-AS:12576 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/239/2019 GOPAL CH. NATH AND 8 ORS. S/O LATE JURAN CH. NATH R/O R.G. BARUAH ROAD, BYE LANE NO. 9 (WEST), HOUSE NO. 78 P.O. ZOO ROAD, P.S. GEETANAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM GUWAHATI - 781024. 2: SYED IMTIAZUL HAQUE S/O LATE SYED FUZAIL HAQUE R/O HOUSE NO. 13 ANUPAM PATH P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI -38. 3: MRS. BIJU KONWAR W/O SRI SANJIB KR. HANDIQUE R/O NABARUN APARTMENT FLAT NO. 004 S.K. BARUAH ROAD RUKMINI GAON P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/17 GUWAHATI -06. 4: SRI JITENDRA NATH UZIR S/O LATE JATHU RAM UZIR R/O KOTOHA NIBUK GAON P.O. KOTOHA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 885676 5: MD. MANJUR ALI S/O LATE FATIK ALI R/O HOUSE NO. 20 MOTHER TERESA PATH BYE LANE -4 BHETAPARA ROAD P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI-38. 6: MRS. BHARATI DAS W/O SRI PHONINDRA KR. DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 12 CHANAKYA PATH G.S. ROAD DISPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI -5. 7: SRI KESHAB SHARMA S/O LATE KRISHNA KT. SARMAH R/O HOUSE NO. 2 NAGARIK PATH CHANDAN NAGAR BYE LANE - ASOMI PATH GUWAHATI -28 ASSAM. Page No.# 3/17 8: SRI SUREN SAIKIA S/O LATE JOGESWAR SAIKIA R/O TEOK DAKHIN DULIA GAON P.O. UTTAR DULIA DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN - 785112 9: SRI NITYANANDA DEKA S/O LATE HARESWAR DEKA R/O NABURKA P.O. KSHUDRADIMU P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN - 78138 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -06. 3:THE CHAIRMAN HOUSEFED ASSAM GUWAHATI -06. 4:THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ASSAM STATE CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD. BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD Page No.# 4/17 DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 5:THE COMMISSIONER OF REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE NORTH EASTERN REGION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI -05. 6:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HOUSEFED ASSAM GUWAHATI -06. 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI -29. 8:THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER (P AND GS) LICI GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE JEEVAN PRAKASH FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001. 9:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY KHANAPARA GUWAHATI -29 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H AGARWAL,MR. R SALOI,MR. R KALITA,MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.,MR. M SHAH Page No.# 5/17 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR G BORDOLOI (r-6),MR. S K TALUKDAR (r- 6),MR J SINGH,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, AG,MR. P K ROY (R5),MR. S K CHAKRABORTY (R5),MS U DAS (R6),MR D DAS (R8),MR R CHAKRAVORTY (R8),MR R SHARMA (R8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 31.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. J. M. Konwar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2; Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos.3, 4, 6 and 9; and Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Employees Provident Fund Organization, appearing for the respondent no.5; and Mr. R. Boro, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.7; and Mr. R. Chakrabarty, learned counsel, appearing for the LIC/respondent no.8. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition, who were the employees of the Assam State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as HOUSEFED), have joined together to institute the present writ petition, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for enhancement of the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), authorized to them and also for extending to them the admissible Page No.# 6/17 benefits flowing upon adoption of the provisions of the Revision of Pay (hereinafter in short ROP) Rules, 2017, of the Government of Assam, by the Board of Directors of HOUSEFED. 3. The petitioners in the present writ petition who were employees of HOUSEFED, had retired from their respective services, on reaching the age of superannuation, during the years 2016 and 2017. The Government of Assam, in pursuance to the acceptance of the recommendations of the Assam Pay and Productive Pay Commission, 2017, had published the accepted recommendations in the form of the Revision of Pay (ROP), Rules, 2017. Thereafter, vide an Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2017, the said ROP Rules of 2017, was declared to be made effective w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In terms of the provisions of Clause 7 of the said Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2017, the existing limit for payment of DCRG benefit of Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs), was enhanced to Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), and such enhancement was made effective w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The provisions of ROP Rules, 2017, published by the Government of Assam, for its employees is not automatically applicable to the employees of the HOUSEFED. Accordingly, the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 17.06.2017, proceeded to approve the proposal for payment of revised pay to the HOUSEFED employees, in terms of the provisions of ROP Rules, 2017. The Page No.# 7/17 Resolution No.12 dated 17.06.2017, having been adopted, the Managing Director, HOUSEFED vide a communication dated 26.03.2018, forwarded the annual renewal premium for the policy in operation with the LICI authorities for the employees of HOUSEFED, and therein, required the LICI authorities to enhance the DCRG limit of the retiring HOUSEFED employees upto Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) with immediate effect. The petitioners, herein, upon their superannuation from their services, having been only authorized their DCRG at the maximum rate of Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs) as per entitlement, and their prayer for grant of DCRG benefits to them at the enhanced limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), not being considered by the respondent authorities, being aggrieved have instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners by referring to the said Resolution adopted by the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 17.06.2017, to release to the employees of HOUSEFED, their pay and allowances in terms of the provisions of ROP Rules, 2017, and the communication dated 26.03.2018, issued to the LICI authorities by the Managing Director of HOUSEFED, for enhancement of the DCRG benefits, in respect of the retiring HOUSEFED Employees upto Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), submits that the Board of Director of the HOUSEFED, had infact adopted all the provisions of the Page No.# 8/17 ROP Rules, 2017, and had not limited it only to the revision pay scales coming into being. 4.1. Mr. Konwar, further submits that the HOUSEFED authorities had paid the enhanced limit premium vide the communication dated 26.03.2018, against a new policy created for the purpose and not against the old policy which was in operation, in so far as the Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Policy opened by the HOUSEFED. 4.2. Mr. Konwar, has further submitted that the petitioners who had retired after 01.04.2016, would also be entitled to the enhanced gratuity DCRG and the respondent authorities cannot deny the said benefits to the petitioners, herein, after having adopted the provisions of ROP Rules 2017, including the provisions, therein, for enhancement of the limit of payment of DCRG w.e.f., 01.04.2016. 4.3. Mr. Konwar, by referring to a subsequent decision adopted by the Board of Director, HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 30.01.2026 (i.e., during the pendency of the present writ petition), has submitted that the clarification as contained, therein, to the effect that the enhancement of the gratuity for the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, having been so implemented after the retirement of the petitioners, herein, the same would not stand extended to the petitioners, herein, to be clearly perverse, as the said decision has the effect of overriding the initial decision arrived Page No.# 9/17 at by the Board on 17.06.2017, to implement the ROP Rules, 2017. Mr. Konwar, further submits that the classification now brought into being, on the basis of the date of retirement of an employee of HOUSEFED, to be not a reasonable classification, inasmuch as, such classification does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Mr. Konwar, accordingly, submits that the Board of Director, HOUSEFED, having adopted the ROP Rules, 2017, in its totality, without making for any exception in such Resolution, cannot now resile back from the said decision, only for the purpose of denying to the petitioners, authorization of their DCRG benefits at the enhanced rate of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). 4.4. In the above premises, Mr. Konwar, submits that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the present writ petition and accordingly, appropriate directions be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to authorize to the petitioners, their DCRG benefits at the enhanced rate along with other benefits flowing upon adoption by the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, the provisions of the ROP Rules, 2017. 5. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State Respondents, at the outset submits, that the OM dated 12.07.2017, was so issued for the purpose of notifying the date of implementation of the provisions of the ROP, Rules, 2017. He said Page No.# 10/17 that the said ROP Rules 2017, is applicable only in respect of the Government employees and not employees of Autonomous Organization like the HOUSEFED. Mr. Nayak, further submits that, in the event, Autonomous bodies like the HOUSEFED desires to also adopt the provisions of ROP Rules, 2017, it would be permissible for them to do so after adopting a decision in this connection at its highest body, which in the case of the HOUSEFED is its Board of Director. Mr. Nayak, further submits that the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, were within their jurisdiction to accept a part of the ROP Rules, 2017, inasmuch as, it was not mandated that such adoption must be of the ROP Rules, 2017, in totality. 6. Mr. R. Chakrabarty, learned counsel, appearing for the LICI authorities, submits that the DCRG benefits of the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, is being so paid through the LICI, in pursuance to the opening of a “Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Policy”, in the name of “THE TRUSTEE ASSAM STATE HOUSING FINANCE SOCIETY LTD., EMPLOYEE’S GRATUITY FUND”. He submits that the earlier limit for release of such DCRG benefits being Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs), the LICI authorities were accordingly, proposing the premium considering the said limit and the same was being paid by the authorities of HOUSEFED. It is submitted that basing on the said policy, the petitioners, herein, were Page No.# 11/17 released with their DCRG benefits, as per entitlement. The learned counsel further projects that after the DCRG benefits of the petitioners were so released, a communication dated 26.03.2018, was received from the HOUSEFED authorities, along with the renewal premium, for renewal of the said policy with a direction that the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, would now be entitled to Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) as their DCRG benefits. It is submitted that on receipt of the said communication, employees retiring, thereafter, were being released their DCRG benefits, as per entitlement upto the limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners in the present writ petition would not be entitled to draw their DCRG benefits upto the enhanced limit of Rs. Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), inasmuch as, the premium calculated in the matter was being so calculated by construing the limit to be Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs). 7. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior and Standing Counsel, Employees Provident Fund, by referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), has submitted that pension being paid to the petitioners, is being so paid against the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme opened in the name of each of the petitioners. He submits that the said scheme is independent of any ROP Rules, 2017, coming into being and the pension received by the petitioners Page No.# 12/17 under the contributory Provident Fund Scheme from the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, would not mandate a revision upon the coming into force of the ROP, Rules, 2017. Accordingly, he submits that given the nature of relief sought for by the petitioners, no such relief is seen to have been sought for from the authorities of the Employee’s Provident Fund. 8. Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, HOUSEFED, at the outset has submitted that the petitioners, herein, were authorized all retirement benefits as per their entitlement on the date of their respective superannuation from service. He submits that the HOUSEFED, being an autonomous organization, after the publication of the ROP Rules, 2017, proceeded to adopt the same by also considering its financial capacity. With regard to the adoption of the ROP Rules 2017, Mr. Bordoloi, submits that only the revised salary structure, coming into being under the provisions of ROP Rules, 2017, was adopted by the Board of Director of the HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 17.06.2017. He submits that the other benefits like the DCRG, Leave Encashment etc. are accessed by the LICI authorities on the strength of the premium amount deposited by the HOUSEFED authorities. 8.1. Mr. Bordoloi, submits that in pursuant to the filing of the present writ petition, considering the nature of grievance raised by the petitioners, Page No.# 13/17 herein, the matter was again placed before the Board of Director, in its meeting held on 30.01.2026, and the Board on consideration of the matter, rejected the plea of the petitioners for an enhancement of the DCRG benefit authorized to them, on the ground that the said enhancement was implemented after the petitioners, had superannuated from their services and was so implemented vide communication dated 26.03.2018. Accordingly, Mr. Bordoloi, submits that the petitioners, herein, who had retired from their respective services, prior to the enhancement being effected in the quantum of the DCRG benefits, authorized to the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioners, herein, were admittedly serving in an autonomous organization of the Government of Assam, the petitioners cannot be considered to be Government servants in the sense it is so understood. The ROP Rules, 2017, read with the OM dated 12.07.2017, is automatically applicable only in respect of Government servants. In so far as the ROP Rules, 2017, and other connected benefits in respect of the members in service of the autonomous organizations of the Government of Assam, is so concerned, such revision would be permissible to be applied Page No.# 14/17 in their respective cases, only after the highest body of such organization adopts the ROP Rules coming into being and such application would be further limited to the extend of the adoption so made. 11. After the coming into force of the ROP Rules, 2017, the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 17.06.2017, approved, the proposal put up before it, for payment of revised pay to HOUSEFED employees as per ROP Rules 2017. A perusal of the resolution adopted in this connection by the Board of Director of HOUSEFED, would go to reveal that what was adopted was only the revised pay coming into being, in pursuance to the implementation of the ROP Rules 2017. The said Resolution does not further go to reveal that the Board of Director, had also adopted the other provisions contained in the ROP Rules, 2017. 12. As noticed, hereinabove, the DCRG benefits of the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, is being so authorized to them through “Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Policy”, opened by HOUSEFED with the LICI authorities. The said policy was so operated in the following name and style of “THE TRUSTEE ASSAM STATE HOUSING FINANCE SOCIETY LTD. EMPLOYEE’S GRATUITY FUND”, bearing policy no.404003121 (Earlier policy no.26127)”. 13. The Board of Director, HOUSEFED, in its meeting held on 30.01.2026, having also not adopted the enhanced DCRG limit coming into Page No.# 15/17 operation in terms of the provisions of Clause 7 of the OM dated 12.07.2017, it is seen that the petitioners, herein, were authorized their DCRG benefit upto the then existing limit of Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs). This Court further finds that the annual premium of the said policy was being computed by reckoning the maximum limit of Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs) for DCRG. After the superannuation of the petitioners and also release to them their DCRG benefits, by the LICI authorities, it is seen that in pursuance to a decisions adopted by HOUSEFED, the Managing Director HOUSEFED, vide a communication dated 26.03.2018, forwarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs) in favour of LICI towards the lump-sum annual renewal premium of the “Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Policy”. In the said communication, it was projected that the said premium is being paid for the purpose of enhancement of the DCRG benefit to the retiring employees of HOUSEFED from Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs) to Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). Accordingly, it was required of the LICI authorities to enhance the DCRG benefits of the HOUSEFED employees upto Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) with immediate effect i.e. w.e.f. the date of the issuance of the said communication dated 26.03.2018. The said decision for enhancement of the DCRG limit for retiring employees of HOUSEFED is found by this Court from the communication dated Page No.# 16/17 26.03.2018, to be a prospective one, inasmuch as, the renewal premium so submitted was not submitted also for covering the cases of persons like the petitioners who had already superannuated from their respective services. The DCRG benefits being found to be so authorized to the retiring employees under a policy opened by LICI, the amount due for payment will be in connosance with the annual premium, required to be paid against the said policy by the HOUSEFED authorities. The enhanced premium being paid by the communication dated 26.03.2018, is a payment for release of the enhanced benefit, prospectively. 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the LICI authorities, cannot be burdened for payment of DCRG benefits to the retiring employees of HOUSEFED, beyond the limit that was so fixed basing on the premium being paid to the LICI authorities by HOUSEFED. It is also appreciated by this Court that the LICI authorities cannot be made to pay the enhanced DCRG benefits to the persons retiring from service of HOUSEFED prior to 26.03.2018, by making a provision for retrospective payment of enhanced premium. 15. In view of the above discussion, and this Court having found that the adoption with regard to enhanced limit of DCRG benefit, being required to be also followed by a enhancement in the premium paid to the LICI authorities and such enhanced premium being paid by the HOUSEFED Page No.# 17/17 authorities, with prospective effect, the enhanced limit of DCRG benefit cannot be deemed to have come into effect, from a date, prior to the date of submission of the enhanced premium vide the said communication dated 26.03.2018. The petitioners, herein, having been found to have been authorized their respective DCRG benefit, in terms of the policy existing in the matter, on the date they had superannuated from their service, this Court, in the facts and circumstances involved in the present writ petition, is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, are not entitled to be paid their respective DCRG benefit at the enhanced rate, considering the fact that the said enhancement was so made applicable to the employees of the HOUSEFED, retiring from their services after 26.03.2018. 16. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant