Deduction of six years' initial service for pension calculation of Muster Roll workers is impermissible.

The five petitioners served as Muster Roll workers in various divisions of the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, with appointment dates ranging from 1982 to 1987

Upon their superannuation between 2023 and 2024, the respondent authorities calculated their pensionable service by deducting 6 years from their total period of service

The petitioners contended that this deduction resulted in a lower pension amount than they were legally entitled to, asserting that their entire continuous service length should be counted toward pension benefits

1. Whether the respondent authorities were legally permitted to deduct 6 years of initial service from the total period of service of Muster Roll workers for the purpose of calculating pension

2. Whether the judicial precedents prohibiting such deductions apply retrospectively to all similarly situated workers

The court relied on the precedent established in Sanjita Roy v. the State of Assam & Ors. (WP(C) No. 1089/2015), which held that deducting 6 years of service for determining pension eligibility of Muster Roll workers is impermissible

It further applied the Division Bench ruling in Binapani Das v. the State of Assam & Ors. (W.A. No. 18/2021), which clarified that judicial interpretations of existing law are retrospective in nature unless specifically stated otherwise

Government of Assam Office Memorandums dated 20.05.2009 and 31.07.2010 were cited regarding the counting of past Muster Roll service for pension purposes

The court observed that the legal position regarding the calculation of pension for Muster Roll workers is settled by Sanjita Roy and Binapani Das

The court rejected any attempt by the state to limit the benefit of these judgments to a prospective date, reiterating the Division Bench's rationale that courts interpret existing law rather than legislate new ones, making their orders naturally retrospective

Since the respondent authorities did not dispute the legal standing of these precedents, the court found that the deduction of 6 years from the petitioners' service was contrary to law

The court emphasized that if the continuous length of service meets the 20-year benchmark, the full service period must be considered without any deduction

It directed the respondent authorities to re-evaluate the petitioners' claims by calculating their entire continuous period of service to determine pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits in light of the Sanjita Roy and Binapani Das judgments

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise and release the appropriate amounts within 60 days of receiving the certified copy of the order