Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010040602026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1395/2026 SHRI MADAN CH ROY AND 9 ORS S/O LATE KAMENI CH. ROY, VILLAGE- BISONDAI PT- I, P.O- BISONDAI, P.S- GOLAKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM. PIN- 783334 2: PRADIP KUMAR SEAL S/O LATE MONINDRA NATH SEAL VILLAGE- DAKHIN TOKRERCHARA PT-II P.O- GOLAKGANJ P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN- 783334 3: SURENDRA NATH ROY S/O LATE SIBANANDA ROY VILLAGE- PUB GAIKHOWA P.O- GOLAKGANJ P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 4: GOLZAR ALI S/O LATE EUSAF ALI VILLAGE- DAFARPUR P.O- DAFARPUR P.S- TAMARHAT DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 5: MRINAL KANTI KARMAKAR S/O LATE KHATISH KARMAKAR VILLAGE- CHARAIKHOLA P.O- BORO CHARAIKHOLA Page No.# 2/7 P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN- 783334 6: SHRI KHALILUR RAHMAN S/O LATE SAHAR ALI SARKAR VILLAGE- MOISA PT-II P.O- AGOMANI P.S- AGOMANI DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN-783335 7: PROFULLA KUMAR SEN S/O LATE PUNESHAR SEN VILLAGE- BARUNDANGA P.O- DAFARPUR P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN- 783334 8: NURUDDIN SK S/O LATE NAJIM UDDIN SK VILLAGE- NORTH RAIPUR PT-IV P.O- BISONDAI P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 9: PROKASH CH ROY S/O LATE BHOBOTARAN ROY VILLAGE- CHARAIKHOLA P.O- BISONDAI P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 10: JAHANGIR ALI MONDAL S/O LATE ANSER ALI MONDAL VILLAGE- KALDOBA PT-I P.O- AGOMANI P.S-AGOMANI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78333 VERSUS Page No.# 3/7 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THYE COMMSSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-6 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHUBRI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78334 6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 7:THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, MR. P DAIMARY,MR. R. KARIM,MS. N M LONGKENG,J MEDHI Page No.# 4/7 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AG,SC, FINANCE,SC, IRRIGATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. P.K Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms M Kalita, learned counsel appears for the State; Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General; Ms. A Barthakur, learned counsel appears for the Finance and Ms. D.S Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 2. The petitioners were initially engaged as Muster Roll Workers and were subsequently regularized vide Order dated 06.10.2005 issued by the respondent No. 5 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-3490-90-3670 per month w.e.f. 22.07.2005 along with admissible allowances. Thereafter, the petitioners continued to serve in the said post and received salaries as revised by the respondent authorities from time to time until they retired on attending the age of superannuation after rendering more than 30 years of continuous service. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 intimated the respondent No. 6 vide its letter dated 26.07.2019 to allow pension and pensionary benefits to the Muster Roll workers who are regularized and engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and retired after rendering atleast 20 years of continuous service without deduction of initial 6 years of service. Thereafter, after retirement, the petitioners had submitted a detailed representation dated 09.01.2026 highlighting their grievances regarding non-counting of the initial six years of service rendered by them as Muster Roll workers. However, the respondents failed to take any effective steps and process the pension without including the said qualifying service period. Being Page No.# 5/7 aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the petitioner is coveredby the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805 and, therefore, the writ petition be disposed of in the light of the observations made therein. This view was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in W.A. No.18/2021 (Binapani Das vs. the State of Assam & Ors.). 4. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position in law as has been laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra) and which was upheld in Binapani Das (supra). In Sanjita Roy (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the deduction of 6 (six) years of initial service from the total services rendered by an incumbent while calculating the period of service towards eligibility of grant of pension of Muster Roll Workers have been held to be bad. The Coordinate Bench held that such deduction of initial period of 6 (six) years of service from the total period of services rendered is contrary to law. The judgment in Sanjita Roy (supra) was passed on 04.12.2018. In subsequent writ petitions filed, other Coordinate Benches held that the benefits of Sanjita Roy (supra) will be effective only from the date of the said Judgment i.e. 04.12.2018. One such order was brought to the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.18/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra) (W.A. No.18/2021) by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 while upholding the proposition laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra), further held that once the benefit has been granted by way of a judgment, the same cannot be curtailed to deny the benefit of other similarly situated persons when the original judgment itself did not restrict such benefit. It was held that the orders of the Page No.# 6/7 Courts are always retrospective in nature unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment and Order is extracted herein below: “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.” 5. That apart, the Government of Assam by Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2010 provided that the part of their past Muster Roll services prior to regularisation have to be counted for the purpose of pension in terms of PPG Department’s OM No.PPG(P)88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation by the regularized Muster Roll Workers. 6. Considering the limited prayer before this Court and upon careful perusal of the writ petition including the judgments passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra). 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is Page No.# 7/7 found to be correct then the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioner shall be calculated as continuous period of service and the amount of pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner be revaluated and the appropriate amount payable to the petitioner taking into consideration his entire period of service in view of the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra) be released to him without any further delay. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant