Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010067612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2200/2026 PRADIP KALITA AND 4 ORS S/O- LATE UPEN KALITA, VILL.- MALOIBARI, P.O. KHETRI, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2: SONESWAR PATHAK S/O- LATE KINA RAM PATHAK VILL.- BAGIBARI P.O. HAHARA DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3: HAREN KALITA S/O- LATE JOGESHWAR KALITA VILL.- NO. 1 DA GAON P.O. CHUNGAJAN DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 4: BHADRESWAR CHUTIA S/O- LATE GANESH CHUTIA VILL.- NAGAJURI GAON P.O. SARUPATHAR DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 5: PADMA KALITA W/O- LATE JITEN BARUAH R/O- RMS COLONY RANGIA W/NO- 7 P.O- RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHTI-29. 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GUWAHATI-07. 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JORHAT MECHANICAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION) JORHAT. PIN-785001. 8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RANGIA KAMALPUR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) RANGIA. PIN-781380 9:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOLAGHAT DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GOLAGHAT. PIN-785621 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, MR A MALEK Page No.# 3/10 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, PENSION,SC, IRRIGATION – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. F. A. Laskar Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. N. Upadhaya Standing Counsel Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? :Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. F. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who had served as a Muster Roll workers in the office of the Executive Engineer, under the various Divisions of Irrigation Department. Page No.# 4/10 Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 01.11.1982 and retired from service with effect from 31.12.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 42 years 02 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 36 years 02 months and 0 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.24,950/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand Nine Hundred Fifty only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.14,430/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand four hundred thirty only). Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 01.01.1982, and retired from service with effect from 30.11.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 42 years 11 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 36 years 11 months and 0 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.24,950/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand Nine hundred Fifty only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.14,430/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Four Hundred Thirty only). Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 12.04.1987, and retired from service with effect from 31.10.2023 on superannuation. When the pension papers were Page No.# 5/10 prepared the gross period of service was shown as 36 years 06 months and 19 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 30 years 06 months and 19 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.24,110/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Ten only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.14,010/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Ten only). Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 01.08.1987, and retired from service with effect from 31.03.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 36 years 08 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 30 years 08 months and 0 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.24,110/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Ten only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.14,010/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Ten only). Petitioner No. 5 was appointed on 01.10.1986, and retired from service with effect from 31.01.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 37 years 04 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 31 years 04 months and 0 Page No.# 6/10 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.24,110/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Ten only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.14,010/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Ten only). According to the petitioners the amount of pension that they had received is less than the amount they are entitled to receive under the provisions of law. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have deducted their initial 6 (six) years from the total period of their service while calculating the amount of pension payable to the writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said deduction of 6 (six) years of service has been held impermissible by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. the State of Assam & Ors.) decided on 04.12.2018, and the respondent authorities were directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench marks of 20 (twenty) years then the benefit of pension should be made available to them without any deduction from the total period of service. 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.). Page No.# 7/10 3. The counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available on record have been perused. 4. 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 Page No.# 8/10 judgment itself did not restrict such benefit. It was held that the orders of the 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 Page No.# 9/10 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 found to be correct that the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioners shall be calculated as continuous period of service and the amount of pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits payable to the petitioners be revaluated and the appropriate amount payable to the petitioners 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 Page No.# 10/10 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