Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010274862024 2025:GAU-AS:8276 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7025/2024 TUNU BARUAH D/O- LATE GAGAN CH. BARUAH, W/O- SRI PRABIN TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF - HOUSE NO. 18B, SILPUKHURI HOUSING COLONY ROAD, P.O.- SILPUKHURI, P.S.- CHANDMARI, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND ADMIN. REFORM DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPATTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR SOIL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM BHUMI SANGRAKSHAN BHAWAN RG BARUAH ROAD Page No.# 2/8 GUWAHATI-05. 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29. 6:THE DIVISIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER (ENGINEERING) BHUMI SANGRAKSHAN BHAWAN RG BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI- 05. 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER DISPUR TREASURY GUWAHATI-06 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOIL CONSERVATION DEPTT., MR. S K MEDHISC, AG (A AND E),SC, AG,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. R. Rabha, learned Standing Counsel, Soil Conservation Department, Assam, representing the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 6 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the respondent nos. 2 as well as Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department representing the respondent nos. 3 & 7. 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 his Page No.# 3/8 Muster Roll service, while computing his qualifying service for authorization to him, his pension and pensionary benefits. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner herein was engaged as a Muster Roll worker (Peon) in the office of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, (Engineering) w.e.f. 01.01.1981. The services of the petitioner was thereafter, regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 vide issuance of an order dated 07.10.2005. The petitioner retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2012. 4. Pursuant to the superannuation of the petitioner, the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, prepared a pension proposal in respect of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Director, Soil Conservation, Assam. The Director of Soil Conservation, Assam in turn, forwarded the said proposal to the Government of Assam in the Soil Conservation Department for onward transmission to the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam. 5. The office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam, on receipt of the pension proposal in respect of the petitioner, herein, processed the same and noticing that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll worker w.e.f. 01.01.1990 for the purpose of determining his qualifying service for pension, deducted 6 years of his initial service on Muster Roll basis. On such deduction, the qualifying service of the petitioner worked out to 16 years and 10 months, the same being less than 20 years, he was held to be not eligible for pension. The petitioner was thereafter, vide communication dated 20.03.2014, authorized a terminal gratuity of an amount of Rs. 1,02,512/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts noticed herein Page No.# 4/8 above and has submitted that the petitioner had the requisite qualifying service for being authorized the pension and pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner having rendered his services on Muster Roll basis w.e.f. 01.01.1981, followed by regularization of his such Muster Roll services in the year 2005, the petitioner, on the date of his superannuation which had occasioned on 31.12.2012, had the requisite qualifying service for being eligible to pension and pensionary benefits, however, the respondent authorities without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective had proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner by applying the provisions of the OM dated 20.05.2009. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application of the provisions of the OM dated 20.05.2009, more particularly, the prescription made therein for deduction of initial 6 years of the Muster Roll services rendered by the petitioner would not be sustainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs State of Assam & Ors., [(WP(C) No. 1089/2015), decided on 04.12.2018.] 8. In response to the query made by this Court with regard to two different dates of initial engagement of the petitioner on Muster Roll basis that had surfaced from the materials brought on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of engagement as reflected by the respondent authorities, i.e. “01.01.1990” be treated the date of initial engagement of the petitioner on Muster Roll basis. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The facts noticed herein above are not in dispute. The petitioner herein, as noticed herein above has a gross qualifying service of 22 years, 11 months and 30 days and accordingly, he having a qualifying service of more than 20 years, he is to be held to be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. However, it is to be Page No.# 5/8 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. 11. 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. Page No.# 6/8 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 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 Page No.# 7/8 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.” 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. A perusal of the pension proposal forwarded by the authorities of the Soil Conservation Department, Assam, to the office of the Accountant General, (A & E), Assam, would go to reveal that the petitioner herein had entered into his services w.e.f. 01.01.1990 and had continued in such service till 31.12.2012. In total, the petitioner had rendered 22 years, 11 days and 30 days of service both as Muster Roll basis and thereafter, w.e.f. 2005 on regular basis and accordingly, he would be eligible for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits. 14. In view of the above discussion, the office of the Accountant General, (A & E), Assam, is directed to compute the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner, by reckoning the initial 6 years of Muster Roll service rendered by him as also qualifying service for pension and accordingly, deeming his qualifying service for pension to be as 22 years, 11 months and 30 days and thereafter, to issue to the petitioner a Pension Payment Order within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. 15. The arrears of the pension and pensionary benefits now becoming due to the petitioner 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 Page No.# 8/8 Pension Payment Order in terms of the directions passed herein above, after deducting therefrom the terminal gratuity benefits authorized to the petitioner vide the communication dated 20.03.2014. 16. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant