IMPORTANT POINT
The deduction of initial Muster Roll service years for pension eligibility is unreasonable; continuous service must be recognized in full.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K.R Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned for the respondent No. 1, 3 & 6, Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The case, in brief, as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll worker under the Office of the Executive Engineer, Barpathar (Road) Division, Silonijan on 01/04/1991. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized as Grade-IV employee w.e.f. 30/09/2005 vide the communication dated 30/09/2005 issued by the Government of Assam, Public Works Department(PWD), Audit Branch, Dispur, Guwahati.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the communication dated 30/09/2005, the petitioner’s name appears at Sl. No. 14 under the Barpathar Road Division, NC Hills and the date of engagement of the petitioner is shown as 01/04/1991. The petitioner retired from service on 30/04/2016 on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering service for 25 years 29 days.

4. After the retirement from service, the petitioner submitted the pension proposal paper in the Office of the respondent No.5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Barpathar (Road) Division, Silonijan, District-Karbi Anglong, Assam and the respondent No.5 in turn forwarded the pension proposal papers of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Road) department, Dispur, Guwahati vide letter dated 12/07/2016.

5. The respondents has however rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension and retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the minimum qualifying years of service of 20 years after deducting 6 years of initial Muster Roll service. The petitioner has been informed that the denial of the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits is in terms of the O.M No. PPG(F)88/2009/2 dated 20/05/2009 issued by the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance department, Dispur, Guwahati. The said O.M amongst other provided that after regularization of service of the Muster Roll workers, the period of Muster Roll services beyond the initial period of 6(six) years of Muster Roll service shall qualify for the purpose of pension and DCRG subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions;

“……………………………..

1. The period of Muster Roll Services of intial 6(six) years will be deducted.

2………………….

3…………………….”

6. It is the case of the petitioner that though he had served the Government of Assam in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Barpathar Roads Division, Silonijan for 25 years 29 days, the petitioner has been denied the pensionary benefits in terms of the O.M dated 20/05/2009. The petitioner submits that if from his over all period of service of 25 years 29 days rendered in the department, the initial 6 years of service as Muster Roll is deducted, the petitioner becomes ineligible for pensionary and other post retiral benefits as the total length of service of the petitioner will be reduced to less than 20 years.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the judgment & order dated 04/12/2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015 in Sanjita Roy -versus-State of Assam & Others and batches of the writ petitions wherein this Court in paragraph-30 & 31 has held as follows;

“30. In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without