Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010185592026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4941/2026 UTPAL KUMAR BARUAH AND ANR S/O LATE RAMESH CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O GOURIPUR, WARD NO- 2, P.O.- GOURIPUR, P.S. GOURIPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP , ASSAM, PIN- 783331 2: NARENDRA NATH ROY S/O LATE RABINDRA NATH RAY R/O VILLAGE- KHUDIMARI PART II P.O. KHUDIMARI PART II P.S. GOURIPUR DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 783331 DISTRICT- KAMRUP PIN- 78112 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARYY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 Page No.# 2/5 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINERING (WATER) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 36 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEATH ENGINEERING DHUBRI- DIVISION DHUBRI 6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BHATTACHARYYA, MS. C BUJARBARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AG (A AND E),SC, P H E,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5; Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the arbitrary deduction of 6 years initial period of service while calculating the pensionary and gratuity benefits of the petitioners. Page No.# 3/5 3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as casual M. R. workers under the authority of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and they joined as casual workers on 25.05.1990 and 20.01.1993 respectively. Subsequently, by different orders, their services were regularized as Khalasi w.e.f. 22.07.2005. The petitioner No. 1 rendered service for 35 years 9 months and 7 days, whereas the petitioner No. 2 served 29 years 12 days in service respectively. The petitioner No. 1 retired from service on 28.02.2026, whereas the petitioner No. 2 retired from service on 31.01.2022. 4. It is stated that after their retirement while calculating the pension, the respondent No. 6 issued pension payment orders in favour of the petitioners, with endorsement of Treasury Officer dated 06.06.2026 and 23.12.2023 respectively. In the pension payment order of the petitioner No. 1, the pension admissible for qualifying service was shown as Rs. 15,320/- and the gratuity admissible was shown as Rs. 7, 13, 827/-. It is stated that the gross service period of the petitioner No. 1 was shown as 35 years 9 months and 7 days and net qualifying service was shown as 29 years 9 months and 7 days. Similarly, in the pension payment order of the petitioner No. 2, pension admissible for qualifying service was shown as 12, 140/- and gratuity amount was shown as Rs. 4,06,675/- only. The gross service of the petitioner No. 2 was shown as 29 years 12 days and net qualifying service was shown as 23 years 12 days. It is stated that in the aforesaid two pension payment orders of the petitioners, 6 years of service for both the petitioners were deducted as non qualifying service. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by such deduction of 6 Page No.# 4/5 years. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that such deduction of 6 years is not permissible under the law as held in the case of Sanjita Roy vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors. [WP(C) No. 1089/2015] which was decided on 04.12.2018. He submits that in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra), the respondent authorities were directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as M. R. workers and if the service meets the benchmark of 20 years, then the benefit of pension should be made available to the petitioners without any deduction from the total period of service. He further submits that the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in WA No. 18/ 2021 (Binapani Das vs. The State of Assam and 12 Ors.) 6. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the ratio laid in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) as well as Binapani Das (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits before this Court the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 5869/2023 (Jogeswar Bujarbaruah vs. The State of Assam and 5 Ors.), wherein also in a similar case, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has taken the same view and disposed of the case with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner therein in terms of the aforesaid two orders as mentioned above. 8. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the ratios laid Page No.# 5/5 down in the aforesaid two cases of Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition can be disposed of and closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioners and if they are found to be correct, then the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioners shall be considered as continued period of service and the amount of pension, gratuity and all other retirement benefits payable to the petitioners be re-calculated and appropriate amount payable to the petitioners, taking into consideration, the entire period of service in view of the aforesaid two judgments, be released to them without any further delay. 9. The respondent authorities shall complete the exercise of verification of the cases of the petitioners within a period of 60 days from receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant