Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8200 (GAU)

SMTI NIRMALI DAS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

WP(C)/2594/2026 · 2026-06-14

Soumitra Saikia

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010090912026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2594/2026 SMTI NIRMALI DAS W/O- LATE DIPAK KUMAR DAS R/O- BONDA GAON NEAR LAKSHI MANDIR, P.O. P.S. -PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST.-KAMRUP 781026. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006. 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI PIN- 781029. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI DIVISION NO.I ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. MASUM ALAM, MS. D BORA,MS D MAHANTA,MR B M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, AG (A AND E),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 15.06 .2026 Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No.4 and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues involved in this writ petition are akin to the issues which were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805 as well as W.A. No.18/2021 and other connected appeals which were disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 and therefore, prays to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the order passed in WP(C) No.1089/2015. 3] The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings Page No.# 3/5 available on record have been carefully perused. 4] Upon perusal of the pleadings available on record, it is seen that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, by Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018, passed in W.P(C) No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and Ors.), has held that where a Muster Roll employee has completed 20 years of continuous service, the entire period of service would be counted for pensionary benefits and no deduction of the period of service shall be made in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009. 5] Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court by following the decision taken by this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra) disposed of WP(C) 4027/2019 (Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Assam and Others) and other connected writ petitions by order dated 21.06.2019. However, later the Coordinate Bench held that since the earlier order of the Court was passed on 04.12.2018 in Sanjita Roy (supra), the benefits granted to the petitioners in Bahadur Pradhan (supra) and the connected writ petitions will be granted only from 04.12.2018. This was followed in another set of writ petitions, which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 13.10.2019, in which the lead case being WP(C) 8713/2019 (Braza Kumar Baruah vs. the State of Assam & 6 Ors). These bunch of writ petitions were also disposed of granting similar reliefs that the petitioners therein would be entitled to get pension under the New Pension Scheme w.e.f. 04.12.2018. It is against this order dated 13.10.2019 passed in WP(C) 8713/2019 that the petitioners therein filed intra Court appeals before this Court, the lead case being WA No. 18/2021 (Bina Pani Das vs. The State of Assam & 12 Ors). The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and Page No.# 4/5 order dated 26.02.2021, passed in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected appeals, held that putting a condition that the benefit of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)] will be effective only from the date of the judgment i.e. 04.12.2018 is not correct and more particularly when there was no such embargo in the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)]. The Division Bench held that 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 but only interpret an existing law. The Division Bench further held that the order dated 04.12.2018 is retrospective in nature and it would, therefore, include all similarly situated Muster Roll Workers irrespective of the dates of retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier, and were already availing pension. The writ appeals were accordingly allowed and the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Benches restricting the benefit of granting pension w.e.f. the date of judgment rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) were set aside. 6] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings available on record along with the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)] as well as the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected appeals, this Court is of the considered view that the issues raised in this writ petition stands covered by the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected writ appeals. Page No.# 5/5 7] In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioner herein stands covered by the directions contained in the order dated 04.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Sanjita Roy (supra) as upheld by the Division Bench by the order dated 26.02.2021 passed in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected writ appeals. Accordingly, the petitioner is held to be entitled for grant of pension. The pension and other benefits that may accrue to the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, without further delay. 8] Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant