Assam Minorities Board Employees, Salary Paid Through Grants-In-Aid & Not from State Salary Head, Can't Be Treated As Government Servants: Gauhati HC

A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Manish Choudhury held that employees of the Assam Minorities Development Board, whose salaries are paid from grants-in-aid and not from the regular State salary head, cannot be treated as government servants and are not entitled to pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Background Facts The appellants were employees working in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts such as Peon, Driver, LDA, and Steno under the Assam Minorities Development Board. Their posts were sanctioned by the State Government and permanently retained. They had been serving for a long period and claimed entitlement to pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, on the ground that their posts were sanctioned and retained by the State, making them eligible for pensionary benefits. But they were denied the pensionary benefits by the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a petition. The Single Judge accepted the stand of the State and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge. It was contended by the appellant that the Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that they had been serving under the Board for a long time on the posts which were sanctioned by the State Government. Further that such posts were permanently retained. Thus, they qualify for being paid pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (Rules of 1969). Further the appellant relied upon the notification dated 15th February, 2024 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department with respect to one employee of the Board, by which the said employee was allowed to be governed by a new set of Pension Rules under the “New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme”. On the other hand it was contended by the respondents that even though the posts were permanently retained but the sanction was only for a limited period. It was contended that the appellants were paid out of the grants-in-aid provided to the Board by the Government, rather than from regular Government Salary Budget, which comes under ordinary Head. It was further contended by the respondents that notwithstanding the fact that the Board has State presence and also possesses certain trappings of the State, but there would be a distinction between a body which is taken to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and a body/Board which would be imposed with financial burden. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969 provides for 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 the service is must under the Government; the employment must be substantive and permanent and the servant must be paid by Government. However, as per proviso, even though these conditions are not fulfilled, the Governor may 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 allow, the service rendered by an officer to count for pension. The case of State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha was relied upon wherein it was held by the Supreme Court 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. It was held by the court that even though the Board may come within the definition of “State” for other purposes, but the employees of the Board, who were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid, would not be called government servants. It was further held by the court that the appellants were employees of the Board and they served on conditionally sanctioned posts, which were permanently retained. Further they were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid and not from the ordinary Head for disbursement of salary of the government employees. Lastly, from the notification dated 15th February, 2024 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Minorities and Development Department, it was observed by the court that it 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. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal was dismissed. Case Name : Sri Ismail Ali and Ors vs The State Of Assam and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 46 Case No. : WA/241/2025 Counsel for the ...

Assam Minorities Board Employees, Salary Paid Through Grants-In-Aid & Not from State Salary Head, Can't Be Treated As Government Servants: Gauhati HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Assam Minorities Board Employees, Salary Paid Through Grants-In-Aid & Not from State Salary Head, Can't Be Treated As Government Servants: Gauhati HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers