Gauhati High Court
Tarun Daimary vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 9 June, 2025
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010073362024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2075/2024
TARUN DAIMARY
S/O- LATE JANGA DAIMARY,
R/O- VILL. BILPAR, P.O.- KALAKUCHI,
MOUZA- PUB-BAKSA, P.S.- TAMULPUR,
DISTRICT- BAKSA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT (PWRD),
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
P.W.R.D. (ADUDIT) BRANCH
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI- 781003.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI- 781036.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D.
Page No.# 2/6
NALBARI RURAL ROAD DIVISION
NALBARI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH,MR. B C DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD, SC, AG
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
09.06.2025
Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar,
learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. KK Medhi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. SK Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E).
2. The prayer in this writ petition is for grant of full pension and other retiral
benefits by considering the total length of service reckoned from the date of
initial appointment of the petitioner in the service of the PWD, Nalbari, State
Road Division, Nalbari.
3. This writ petitioner had served as a Labour on Muster Roll basis in the
office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural Road Division, Dhamdhama. He
was appointed on 23.04.1987 and his service was regularized on 07.10.2005
with effect from 22.07.2005 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer,
PWD, Nalbari. He retired from his service with effect from 31.05.2007 on
superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of
service was shown as 14 years 01 month 09 days whereas the net qualifying
Page No.# 3/6
service of the petitioner was 20 years 01 month 9 days. According to the
petitioner the amount of pension that he has received is less than the amount
he is entitled to receive under the provisions of law. It is submitted that the
respondent authorities have deducted his initial 6 (six) years from the total
period of his service while calculating the amount of pension payable to the writ
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said deduction of
6 (six) years of service has been held impermissible by this Court in WP(C)
No.1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. the State of Assam & Ors.) decided on
04.12.2018, and the respondent authorities were directed to determine the
continuous length of service of the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers and if
such service meets the bench marks of 20 (twenty) years then the benefit of
pension should be made available to them without any deduction from the total
period of service. This view was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by
Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in W.A. No.18/2021 (Binapani
Das vs. the State of Assam & Ors.) .
4. By earlier order, the respondents were permitted opportunities to complete
their instructions in the matter. However, Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel,
PWD, submits that he has received instructions and he has submitted before the
Court that he be permitted to bring it on record. However, on a pointed query
by the Court, Mr. Dhar submits that the instructions relate to a position prior to
the judgment of Sanjita Roy (supra) which stood upheld by the Division Bench
in the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021. In that view of the matter, this
Court finds it appropriate to close this matter at this stage declining the prayer
of Mr. R. Dhar for filing an affidavit.
5. The counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available on
record have been perused.
Page No.# 4/6
6. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position in law
as has been laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra) and which was upheld in Binapani
Das (supra). In Sanjita Roy (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that
the deduction of 6 (six) years of initial service from the total services rendered
by an incumbent while calculating the period of service towards eligibility of
grant of pension of Muster Roll Workers have been held to be bad. The
Coordinate Bench held that such deduction of initial period of 6 (six) years of
service from the total period of services rendered is contrary to law. The
judgment in Sanjita Roy (supra) was passed on 04.12.2018. In subsequent writ
petitions filed, other Coordinate Benches held that the benefits of Sanjita Roy
(supra) will be effective only from the date of the said Judgment i.e.
04.12.2018. One such order was brought to the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No.18/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra)
(W.A. No.18/2021) by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 while upholding
the proposition laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra), further held that once the
benefit has been granted by way of a judgment, the same cannot be curtailed
to deny the benefit of other similarly situated persons when the original
judgment itself did not restrict such benefit. It was held that the orders of the
Courts are always retrospective in nature unless it is specifically made
prospective in the order itself. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment and
Order is extracted herein below:
"9. An order of the court is always retrospective in nature, unless it is specifically
made prospective in the order itself. This is because the courts do not legislate, they
only interpret an existing law. This is unlike the laws made by the State Legislature
and the Parliament, which are always prospective in nature, unless again, the law
itself makes it retrospective. The original judgement (dated 04.12.2018), passed in
WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others), does not give
Page No.# 5/6
benefit to the petitioners from a prospective date. Therefore, in our considered
opinion, the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature and it would
include all similarly situated muster roll workers irrespective of their dates of
retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier, and
were already availing pension."
7. That apart, the Government of Assam by Office Memorandum dated
31.07.2010 provided that the part of their past Muster Roll services prior to
regularisation have to be counted for the purpose of pension in terms of PPG
Department's OM No.PPG(P)88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 on attaining the age
of superannuation by the regularized Muster Roll Workers.
8. Considering the limited prayer before this Court and upon careful perusal
of the writ petition including the judgments passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and
Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the writ
petition is squarely covered by the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy
(supra) which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das
(supra).
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands closed with a direction
to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is
found to be correct then the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioner
shall be calculated as continuous period of service and the amount of
pension/provisional pension and all other dues payable to the petitioner be
revaluated and the appropriate amount payable to the petitioner taking into
consideration his entire period of service in view of the Judgment and Order
passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra) be released to him
without any further delay. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period
of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Page No.# 6/6
10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
***
