Gauhati High Court
Sarada Talukdar vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 17 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010253732024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6526/2024
SARADA TALUKDAR
W/O- JATIN KALITA, R/O- ULUBARI, R/O- ULUBARI,G.S ROAD, P.O AND P.S-
ULUBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR- 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
5:THE TREASURY OFFICER
THE DIRECTORATE OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURIES
KAMRUP METRO
Page No.# 2/7
GUWAHATI-36
6:THE DIRECTOR
INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K DAS, C SAIKIA,S J DUTTA,MS. B CHETRY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT, GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE,SC, AG (A AND E)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 17.06.2025
Heard Mr. M. K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Also heard Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department,
Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 6 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl.
Senior Government Advocate representing the respondent no. 2; Mr. R. K.
Talukdar, learned Advocate General representing the respondent no. 3 as well as
Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. Advocate General representing the respondent nos. 4 &
5.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings pertains to
the action on the part of the respondent authorities in deducting 6 years of her
Muster Roll service, while computing her qualifying service for authorization to her,
pension and pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner herein was engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the office of
the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, on 01.03.1992. Thereafter, in terms
of the policy decision arrived at by the Government for regularization of the
services of Muster Roll/Work-charged employees working prior to 01.04.1993, the
services of the petitioner was regularized vide an order dated 07.10.2005, issued
Page No.# 3/7
by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam. Thereafter, the petitioner
continued in her regularized service till the date of her superannuation which had
occasioned on 30.04.2024.
4. In pursuance to the superannuation of the petitioner, her pension papers
were forwarded by the office of the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, to the
office of the Accountant General, A & E, Assam, for disbursement of her pension
and other pensionary benefits. In the proposal that was so forwarded, the Director
of Inland Water Transport, Assam, had observed that the initial 06 years of the
Muster Roll service of the petitioner would not be called to be deducted in view of
the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs The State of Assam & Ors.
[(WP(C) No. 1089/2015, decided on 04.12.2018)].
5. 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 Muster Roll workers, the period of
Muster Roll service beyond the initial 06 years of such service, was held to be
reckonable for the purpose of quantifying the qualifying service for authorization of
pension and other pensionary benefits. In other words, for the purpose of
computing the qualifying service of the petitioner, it was permissible to also reckon
the Muster Roll period of service, however, the initial 6 years of such service was
mandated to be deducted. The office of the AG, A & E, Assam, while processing
the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner had determined her gross
qualifying service as 32 years 2 months, 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 petitioner, her net
qualifying service was determined as 26 years 02 months.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of the determination of
her qualifying service for pension at a lower stage, the emoluments flowing to the
Page No.# 4/7
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 petitioner herein.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above facts and has
submitted that the initial 6 years of her 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.
8. Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam, has
submitted that the decision in the case of Sangita Roy (supra) would squarely
stand applied to the case of the petitioner herein, and, she would be entitled to
also have the deducted period of 06 years to be so added to her qualifying service
for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.
9. 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.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the materials brought on record.
Page No.# 5/7
11. The facts noticed herein above are not in dispute. The petitioner herein has a
gross qualifying service of 32 years 02 months and accordingly, she 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 06 years from the gross qualifying
service determined in the matter in view of the provisions of the OM dated
20.05.2009. The provisions in this connection, 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 was 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
Page No.# 6/7
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 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."
12. It is to be noted that a 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
Page No.# 7/7
to them earlier, and were already availing pension."
13. Having noticed the decisions of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra)
as 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 petitioner in the present
proceeding is covered by the said decisions and accordingly, she would be entitled
for a direction to the Accountant General, A & E, Assam, for re-computation of her
pension and pensionary benefits by considering her qualifying service to be 32
years 02 months i.e., by including therein the period of 06 years deducted in terms
of the OM 20.05.2009.
14. In view of the above discussion, the office of the Accountant General, A & E,
Assam, is directed to re-compute the pension and pensionary benefits receivable
by the petitioner, by reckoning the initial 6 years of Muster Roll service rendered by
her as also qualifying service for pension and accordingly, treating her qualifying
service for pension as 32 years 0 month 0 days and thereafter, to issue a revised
PPO to the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
15. The arrears of the pension and pensionary benefits now becoming due to the
petitioner on account of the revision so required to be made, in terms of the
directions passed herein above, shall be released to the petitioner 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.
16. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
