Exclusion of initial service years from pension calculations for Muster Roll Workers is deemed unfair; total service must be considered for pension eligibility and benefits.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. C. Bhattachayya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos. 2; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam for the respondent no. 6.

2. The two petitioners have stated that they were initially engaged as a Casual Muster Roll Workers in the establishment of the erstwhile Executive Engineer, Dhubri [Irrigation], Gauripur and presently O/o – Executive Engineer Gouripur – Bilashipara West Division [Irrigation], Gauripur on 01.10.1984 and 01.03.1980 respectively. The petitioners have stated that pursuant to a Government Letter no. IGN[E]104/2003/198 dated 03.10.2005 and a Finance Department’s Letter no. FEC[II]/1/2005/66 dated 22.08.2005, the respondent no. 5 vide an Office Order bearing no. GID/1/E-74/05/5 dated 06.10.2005 [Annexure-A] regularized the services of the petitioners in the same office w.e.f. 22.07.2005.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 retired from service from the office of the respondent no. 5 on 30.09.2017 and 31.08.2017 respectively on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioners have stated that the petitioner no. 1 retired on superannuation after rendering thirty-three years of service and out of the thirty-three years of service, twelve years were rendered as a regular helper and the remaining period as Casual/Muster Roll Worker. In so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he has stated that he rendered thirty-seven years and six months of service and out of the said period, twelve years were rendered as a Regular Helper.

4. When the petitioners’ pension papers were forwarded to the respondent no. 6, Pension Payment Orders [PPOs] nos. 106711250202 and 1006711250031 were issued in favour of the petitioners. In the PPO of the petitioner no. 1, the pension figure was shown as Rs. 11,720/- and the amount of gratuity was shown as Rs. 3,32,127/-. It was recorded that the gross period of service of the petitioner no. 1 was thirty-three years and his net qualifying service was shown as twenty-seven years with his last pay as Rs. 23,430/-. With the above figures, the net pension amount payable to the petitioner no. 1 was worked out as Rs. 11,720/- w.e.f. 01.10.2017 in the PPO. The respondent authorities had shown an amount of Rs. 24,030/- as excess drawal of pension from arrear pensions of Rs. 2,24,558/- w.e.f. 01.10.2017 to 28.02.2019.

5. In the Pension Payment Order [PPO] in favour of the petitioner no. 2, the pension amount drawable was shown as Rs. 11,720/- and the amount of gratuity was shown as Rs. 3,87,482/-. The petitioner no. 2’s gross service period was shown as thirty-seven years and net qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension was shown as thirty-one years six months. The last pay of the petitioner no. 2 was shown as Rs. 23,430/-. With the above figures, the net pension amount payable to the petitioner no. 2 was worked out at Rs. 11,720/- w.e.f. 01.09.2017. The respondent authorities also shown an amount of Rs. 25,015/- as excess drawal of pension from arrear pension Rs. 2,37,464/- w.e.f. 01.09.2017 to 28.02.2019.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that an Office Memorandum no. PPG[P]88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 of the Pe