Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4724/2024 on 9 September, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010189592024
2025:GAU-AS:12492
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4724/2024
Pranab Kumar Baruah, S/O - Late Ranjit Kumar Baruah, R/O
- Village - Gharialdonga, Part-I, P.O. - Mahamayahat,
District - Dhubri, Assam, Pin - 783335.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation
Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006, Assam.
2. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Finance Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006,
Assam.
3. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department, Dispur,
Guwahati - 781006, Assam.
4. The Accountant General [A and E], Assam,
Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati-2.
...................Respondents
Page No.# 2/6
Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, Advocate
Respondent nos. 1 : Mr. N. Upadhyay, Standing
Counsel, Irrigation Department.
Respondent no. 2 : Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel,
Finance Department.
Respondent no. 3 : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional
Senior Government Advocate, Assam.
Respondent no. 4 : Mr. B. Sharma, Standing Counsel,
Accountant General [A&E], Assam.
Date of Judgment & Order : 09.09.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned
Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned
Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 2; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee,
learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B.
Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam for the respondent no.
4.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that that petitioner was engaged initially as a
Muster Roll Helper in the Dhubri Division of the Irrigation Department in 1989 w.e.f.
01.12.1989. Pursuant to a Government Letter no. IGN[E]/104/2003/198 dated 03.10.2005
and the Finance Department's Letter no. FFS[II]1/2005/66 dated 22.08.2005, the service of
the petitioner came to be regularized by an Office Order No. GID/1/E-74/05/5 dated
06.10.2005 issued under the hand of the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division, Irrigation
Page No.# 3/6
Department [Annexure-1] w.e.f. 22.07.2005 in the scale of pay mentioned therein. The
petitioner stated that he had rendered continuous and unblemished service for a period of
more than 28 years and 4 months. The petitioner has further stated that he retired from
service 31.03.2018 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner has further stated
that he had rendered service as a Muster Roll employee out of his 28 years and 4 months for
16 years continuously till 22.07.2005 of service and the remaining period since 22.07.2005 till
31.03.2018 as a regular employee.
3. After his retirement on superannuation, papers were forwarded to the office of the
respondent no. 4 to the departmental authorities for calculation of the pension and other
retirement benefits. The petitioner had received the Pension Payment Order [PPO] in due
course. By the Pension Payment Order [PPO], the petitioner was granted an amount of Rs.
10,310/- as monthly pension amount. According to the petitioner, the monthly pension
amount ought to have been worked out at Rs. 11,681/-. The basis of the petitioner's claim is
that while working out the pension amount and the other retirement benefits, the respondent
authorities including the respondent no. 4, had excluded the initial period of six years the
petitioner had rendered service as a Muster Roll employee. The petitioner has further stated
that such deduction of initial period of six years' service has been held to be bad and arbitrary
by a judgment rendered by this Court. The petitioner made an application before the
respondent authorities to make a correct assessment of his pension amount on the basis of
his last pay treating the entire service period of more than 28 years and 4 months rendered
by the petitioner since his initial engagement. The respondent no. 4 had denied such claim by
an Office Letter dated 09.01.2024 addressed to the petitioner. As such assessment, sought
for by the petitioner, has not been made in the subsequent period, the petitioner is before
this Court by the instant writ petition.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that vide an Office Memorandum no. PPG[P]88/2009/2
dated 20.05.2009 of the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Government of Assam, it
was decided to exclude initial period of six years from past services rendered by Muster Roll
Workers for the purpose of working out pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. The said
Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009 was put to challenge in a batch of writ petitions
Page No.# 4/6
including W.P.[C] no. 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and others ]. It was
contended that the decision to exclude the initial period of six years of service as Muster Roll
Worker qua the requirement of 20 years of service as a pre-requisite for being eligible for
pension was arbitrary.
5. The batch of writ petitions including W.P.[C] no. 1089/2015, was disposed of by a
common Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018. The Coordinate Bench after taking into
consideration the fact that to be eligible for pension the Casual Muster Roll Workers whose
services were regularized should complete twenty years of total service, has observed that
the deduction of initial period of six years is unreasonable and unfair.
6. It has been held that it would be unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll
Worker, who had admittedly completed twenty years of continuous service, from the benefit
flowing out of the initial six years. The writ petitions were disposed of directing the
respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners, who
were Muster Roll Workers, and has further observed that if such service period meets the
bench-mark of twenty year without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made
available to them accordingly.
7. It has been submitted at the Bar that when the common Judgment and Order dated
04.12.2018 was challenged before the Division Bench in a Writ Appeal no. 18/2021 [ Binapani
Das vs. State of Assam and others ], it was upheld by the Division Bench in its Judgment
dated 26.02.2021.
8. After the Division Bench Judgment upholding the common Judgment and Order dated
26.02.2021 the position which has been crystallized is that no deduction of the initial six
years of service is to be made from the total period of service rendered by an incumbent as a
Muster Roll employee while calculating the period of service for calculating pension and other
retirement benefits.
9. While upholding the common Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 of the learned
Page No.# 5/6
Single Judge in Sangita Roy [supra], the Division Bench in Binapani Das [supra] has
observed 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
judgment [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.
10. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition with a grievance
that despite the afore-stated settled position of law, the respondent authorities have not
undertaken any process for issuance of a fresh Pension Payment Order [PPO] after
recalculating the total period of the petitioner's qualifying service for the purpose of pension
by including the initial six years' period of service rendered by the petitioner as Muster Roll
Worker.
11. As the Division Bench has already clarified that the observations and directions made
in the Judgment in Sanjita Roy [supra] would be retrospective in nature and the petitioner's
pension amount and other retirement benefit like gratuity had been worked out earlier by
excluding initial period of six years of service he had rendered as Muster Roll Worker, the
respondent authorities including the respondent no. 4, have to redo the exercise of
calculation of the pension amount and other retirement benefits like gratuity, etc. in the case
of the petitioner after including the initial period of six years of service the petitioner had
rendered as Muster Roll employee. If upon redoing the exercise, it is found that the amount
Page No.# 6/6
of pension and other retirement benefits including gratuity, etc. are to be payable at an
enhanced rate after taking into consideration the petitioner's entire period of service as
qualifying service in view of the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy [supra] and
Binapani Das [supra], then the same are to be worked out and released to him with the
issuance of fresh PPO, as expeditiously as possible, but within an outer limit of 3 [three]
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner.
12. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is
disposed of. No cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
