Gauhati High Court Dismisses Pension Claim Of Assam Minorities Development Board Employees | Staff Paid Through Grants-In-Aid And Not State Salary Head Cannot Be Treated As Government Servants
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Manish Choudhury has dismissed an appeal filed by several employees of the Assam Minorities Development Board. The appellants had sought recognition of their entitlement to pensionary benefits under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The Bench concluded that the employees, though serving in posts permanently retained by the State, were not entitled to pensions as their salaries were paid from grants-in-aid and not directly from the Government’s ordinary salary budget. The Court affirmed the findings of the Single Judge, holding that no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The matter arose from a dispute concerning pension entitlement of Grade-III and Grade-IV employees working under the Assam Minorities Development Board. The appellants included individuals employed as Peons, Drivers, Steno-III, and Lower Division Assistant in the Board. They approached the Court after the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) 5747/2023, rejected their claim for pensionary benefits.
The appellants contended before the Division Bench that they had been serving for long periods on posts that were sanctioned by the State Government and permanently retained. On this basis, they asserted their eligibility for pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. According to them, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the permanence of their posts and the legal entitlement that flowed from such status.
The appellants argued that since the posts were not temporary but permanently retained, their service fell squarely within the ambit of Rule 31 of the 1969 Rules. They maintained that they fulfilled the necessary conditions for pensionary qualification and that the rejection of their claim amounted to denial of their legitimate rights.
The State respondents opposed the appeal. They submitted that even though the posts were permanently retained, the sanction was limited in nature, and salaries of the appellants were disbursed from grants-in-aid provided to the Board. Such financial disbursements, the State argued, were separate from regular Government salary budgets which are released under the ordinary Head for State employees. Accordingly, the appellants could not be equated with Government servants holding civil posts under the State.
The State further contended that while the Board might come within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India due to its character and functions, its employees could not thereby be deemed employees of the State Government. The distinction between a body categorized as "State" under Article 12 and employees recognized as Government servants holding civil posts was stated. On this ground, the State urged that the appellants’ claim for pension lacked statutory foundation.
The learned Single Judge, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgement in State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694, had previously held that employees of Boards and cooperative societies, even if considered “State” under Article 12, could not be equated to Government servants. The Single Judge found that the appellants’ salaries were drawn from grants-in-aid, confirming that they did not satisfy the conditions stipulated under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.
Rule 31 sets out three explicit conditions for service to qualify for pension: (i) the service must be under Government, (ii) the employment must be substantive and permanent, and (iii) the servant must be paid by Government. The appellants relied on the second requirement, but the State stated their failure to meet the first and third conditions.
During arguments, reference was made by the appellants to a notification dated 15 February 2024 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department. The said notification extended the benefit of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme to a particular employee of the Board. The appellants sought to use this notification as evidence of discriminatory treatment.
However, the Court, on examining the notification, found that it was a specific declaration applicable only to the named employee and could not be extended to the appellants. The Division Bench held that the notification could not form the basis of a general entitlement for all Board employees.
The Division Bench examined the arguments of both parties in detail and proceeded to analyze the conditions laid down under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The Court recorded: “Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969 is very categorical in stipulating the conditions of qualifying service for being entitled for pension. As per Rule 31, the service of an officer would not qualify for pension unless it conforms to three conditions, namely, (i) the service must be under Government; (ii) the employment must be substantive and permanent; and (iii) the servant must be paid by Government.”
Addressing the proviso to Rule 31, the Court stated: “There is a caveat by way of a proviso, which declares that the Governor may, even though the afore-noted condition (i) or condition (ii), or both, are not fulfilled, declare any specified kind of service rendered in a non-Gazetted capacity to be qualified for pension, and in individual cases and subject to such conditions, as he may think fit to impose in each case, allow the service rendered by an officer to count for pension.”
The Court stated the factual position accepted by the learned Single Judge: “As has been noted by the learned Single Judge, the appellants are employees of the Board and they served on conditionally sanctioned posts, which posts were permanently retained and they were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid and not from the ordinary Head for disbursement of salary of the government employees.”
In reviewing the appellants’ reliance on the February 2024 notification, the Division Bench observed: “On perusal of the afore-noted notification, this Court is of the view that this was a specific declaration with respect to the employee in question and would not be applicable to the appellants entitling them to contend that they are being treated differently.”
The Court further referred to the Single Judge’s reliance on the Supreme Court precedent in Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha. It recorded: “The learned Single Judge relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694 to hold that even if a Board or a cooperative society be treated to be State within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India but it would not be considered as State Government and the employees in such a body would not be called the holders of civil posts, or employees of the State.”
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal: “For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Deke, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. M.D. Borah, Standing Counsel, Welfare of Minority Development Department; Mr. S.K. Medhi, Standing Counsel, Accountant General; Ms. S. Sarma, Government Advocate, Assam
Case Title: Sri Ismail Ali and 5 Ors. v. The State of Assam and 6 Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010132342025
Case Number: WA/241/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar; Justice Manish Choudhury
