Pradip Kalita And 4 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors

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