Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5367 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 16 June, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010013502025




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:7988

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/664/2025

         PADUMI DAS
         W/O- UMESH CH. DAS,
         R.O- VILLAGE JAYANTIPUR (PITAMBAR HAT, BAJALI), P.O-PITAMBAR HAT
         BAJALI, P.S-RANGIA , ASSAM, PIN-781354



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
         ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION AND PUBLIC
         GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION
          CHANDAMARI GUWAHATI 3

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          RANGIA DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
          KAMRUP
         ASSAM
                                                                             Page No.# 2/7

            6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI-29 KAMRUP (M)
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : CHINMOY BHATTACHARYYA, MR. C BHATTACHARYYA,MR
R DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, AG (A AND E),GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                        ORDER

Date : Date: 16.06.2025

None has appeared for the petitioner on call.

2. Heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department representing the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5 and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A & E) Assam, representing the respondent no. 6.

3. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 6, to re-compute the pension and other pensionary benefits, authorized to her husband by also reckoning the initial 6(six) years of service rendered by him as Muster Roll worker, which was deducted while determining his qualifying service for pension.

4. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f., 01.01.1975 in the establishment of the respondent no. 5. The services of the husband of the petitioner came to be regularized vide issuance of an order dated 03.10.2005. The husband of the petitioner retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f., 31.12.2016.

Page No.# 3/7

5. Pursuant to his superannuation from service, the pension proposal of the husband of the petitioner was processed and forwarded to the respondent no. 6 for finalization. On finalization of the pension proposal, the respondent no. 6 issued a Pension Proposal Order (PPO) bearing No. 931711249917, authorizing to the husband of the petitioner his pension and pensionary benefits.

6. A perusal of the PPO issued to the husband of the petitioner would reveal that his gross service was determined as 42 years 0 month 0 days; however, his qualifying service for pension was determined as 36 years 0 month 0 days, by deducting the initial 6 years of his Muster Roll service, in terms of the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 20.05.2009.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the husband of the petitioner is contended to be suffering from dementia, requiring the present petitioner to institute the present proceedings.

8. It is to be noted that in terms of the policy decision contained in an O.M. dated 20.05.2009, on the regularization of the services of Muster Roll workers, the period of Muster Roll service beyond the initial 06 years, was held to be reckonable for the purpose of qualifying service for authorization of pension and other pensionary benefits. In other words, for the purpose of computing the qualifying service of the husband of the petitioner, it was permissible to also reckon the Muster Roll period of service, however, the initial 06 years of such was to be deducted. The office of the AG, A & E, Assam, while processing the pension and pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner had determined his gross qualifying service as 42 years 0 months 0 days, however, out of the said gross qualifying service, a period of 6 years 0 months and 0 days was held to be non-qualifying service in terms of the prescription made in the OM dated 20.05.2009. Accordingly, for the authorization of pension and pensionary benefits to the husband of the petitioner, his net qualifying service was Page No.# 4/7

determined as 36 years 0 months 0 days.

9. It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of the determination of her husband's qualifying service for pension at a lower stage, the emoluments flowing to the husband of the petitioner in the form of pension and pensionary benefits stood reduced. The petitioner has further projected that this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) had interfered with such deduction of 6 years from the qualifying service of a regularized Muster Roll employee and accordingly, the said benefit is also required to be extended to the husband of the petitioner herein.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above facts and has submitted that the initial 6 years of the husband of the petitioner's Muster Roll service has to be now directed to be also reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of determination of pension and pensionary benefits and accordingly, a direction is required to be issued to the Accountant General, A & E, Assam for re-computation of the pension and pensionary benefits.

11. Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Advocate General, Assam, on the other hand, has submitted that in view of the fact that there was no specific direction issued by this Court in respect of the services of the petitioner herein, the directions passed by this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) being confined to the petitioners involved in the said writ petition and the other analogous matters disposed vide the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2018, the office of the AG, A & E, Assam had proceeded to deduct the 06 years of initial Muster Roll service of the petitioner from the qualifying service determined in this matter in terms of the OM dated 20.05.2009.

12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record.

13. The facts noticed herein above are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner herein, has a gross qualifying service of 42 years 0 months 0 days and accordingly, he Page No.# 5/7

was rightly held to be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. The dispute arising in the present case is with regard to the deduction of 6 years from the gross qualifying service determined in the matter in view of the provisions of the OM dated 20.05.2009. The provisions as contained in the OM dated 20.05.2009 was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) and this Court had categorically held that such deduction was not permissible. The conclusions drawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), being relevant, is extracted herein below: -

"29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. The question which rises for determination is whether the decision contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, to deduct 6 years of service meet the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While determining the aforesaid question, the Court is reminded of the fact that the petitioners belong to the economically lower strata of the society. As has been held by various judicial pronouncements, it has been laid down that pension is not a bounty or a grace but valuable right accruing by an employee if he fulfills the conditions to be entitled for such pension. The conditions imposed in the instant case for the petitioners who are Muster Roll Workers is completion of a total period of continuous service of 20 years. While this Court, as has been observed above, does not hold that fixation of 20 years of continuous service an arbitrary, the deduction of 6 years does not appear to be reasonable and fair. This Court does not find force that the exercise, in publishing the notification dated 20.05.2009 itself was an under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, further exercise is not permissible. It will be wholly unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker who is admittedly completed 20 years of continuous service of pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003. However, deduction of 6 years or for that matter, any period to calculate 20 years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable. The entire exercise of issuing the notification should be in a positive manner so as to ensure that maximum benefit is given to the incumbents who undoubtedly belong to the economically lower strata of the society. It should have been the endeavour of the State not to make a Page No.# 6/7

further classification of Muster Roll Workers who have completed 20 years of continuous service by introducing the condition of deduction of 6 years of casual service. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization.

30. In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without taking recourse to the said decision this Court has considered the present writ petitions in the forgoing manner."

14. It is to be noted that an issue had arisen in the matter as to whether the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) would be retrospective or prospective in nature. The said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Binapani Das Vs The State of Assam & Ors., Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2021 in WA No. 18/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court had concluded as under: -

"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 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."

15. Having noticed the decisions of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) as Page No.# 7/7

well the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the case of the husband of the petitioner in the present proceeding is covered by the said decisions and accordingly, he would be entitled for a direction to the Accountant General, A & E, Assam, for re-computation of his pension and pensionary benefits by considering his qualifying service to be 42 years 0 months 0 days i.e., by including therein the period of 6 years deducted in terms of the OM 20.05.2009.

16. In view of the above discussions, the office of the Accountant General (A & E) Assam, is directed to re-compute the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the husband of the petitioner, by reckoning the initial 6 years period of his service as Muster Roll worker as also qualifying for pension and accordingly, treating his qualifying service for pension as 42 years 0 months 0 days, and thereafter, to issue a revised PPO to the husband of the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

17. The arrears of the pension and pensionary benefits now becoming due to the husband of the petitioner on account of the revision so required to be made, in terms of the directions passed herein above, shall be released to him within a further period of 1(one) month from the date of issue of the fresh PPO, required to be issued by the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam, in terms of the directions passed herein above.

18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant