JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3 to 5, Mr. Rupak Dhar, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1 and 2.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1.4.1989 as a Muster Roll Worker in the Public Works Department, Mahur Road Division. Thereupon his service was regularised on 7.10.2005 w.e.f. 22.7.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2007. However, the respondent No. 6 have rejected the pension proposal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had served only for a period of 12 years 2 months 29 days after deducting 6 years which is less than 20 years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s service was regularized w.e.f. 22.7.2005 and the same therefore dates back to the date of the petitioner’s initial appointment i.e. from 1.4.1989 and as such the service period of the petitioner for pension is 18 years 2 months 29 days. This Court vide an order dated 19/4/2023 had sought for instructions as to why the petitioner was not entitled to pension as claimed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted an instruction from the Executive Engineer, PWD wherein it has been mentioned that the total length of service of petitioner from the date of his joining till his date of retirement was 18 years 2 months 29 days and as per Rule 108 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 the petitioner would be entitled to get pensionary benefits as the remaining service period after deducting 6 years is 12 years 2 months 29 days. It was submitted that the petitioner was not given any benefit besides the amount received as terminal gratuity granted by the respondent No. 6 in the month of December, 2017.

4. The said instructions is kept on record and marked with the letter “X.”

5. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy and Others vs. State of Assam, 2019 (2) GLT 805 had categorically held that deduction of 6 years in respect to Muster Roll Workers was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly under such circumstances the deduction of 6 years while computing the pensionable service of the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra). It would further be seen that if the period of 6 years is being taken then the total service of the petitioner would be 18 years 2 months 29 days.

6. The question therefore arises as to whether the entire service period of the petitioner would be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. For that purpose this Court finds it relevant to refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 28.4.2023 in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 527 wherein also the question arose as to whether the entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension is concerned. The Supreme Court while drawing a distinction between a person who has been regularly appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment observed that giving the benefit from the date of their initial appointment would be regularizing the service of the person concerned on casual basis who has been appointed at a work charged establishment and subsequently regularized from the date of their initial appointment. The Supreme Court further took another aspect into consideration that after rendering of services as a work charged for a number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized such persons cannot be denied pension on the ground that they have not com