Order

24.01.2022 Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. A Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Parajuli, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he was having more than 20 years continuous service since his date of initial appointment on 21.12.1992 as MR Worker, he has been deprived of his pensionary benefits on the ground that he has less than 20 years of service counting initial appointment as on 21.12.1992 after deducting initial 6 years of muster roll service.

3. Such decision has been taken in view of Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, issued by the Finance Department, Assam whereby and whereunder it was provided that initial 6 years of service of Muster Roll Worker should be deducted for counting of pensionable service. 4. The said Office Memorendum was put to challenge in a batch of writ petition and vide a common judgment and order dated 04.12.2018, passed in WP (C) No. 1089 of 2015 (Sanjita Roy and others Vs. State of Assam and others), this court held as follows:-

“

29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. The question which rises for determination is whether the decision contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, to deduct 6 years of service meet the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While determining the aforesaid question, the Court is reminded of the fact that the petitioners belong to the economically lower strata of the society. As has been held by various judicial pronouncements, it has been laid down that pension is not a bounty or a grace but valuable right accruing by an employee if he fulfills the conditions to be entitled for such pension. The conditions imposed in the instant case for the petitioners who are Muster Roll Workers is completion of a total period of continuous service of 20 years. While this Court, as has been observed above, does not hold that fixation of 20 years of continuous service an arbitrary, the deduction of 6 years does not appear to be reasonable and fair. This Court does not find force that the exercise, in publishing the notification dated 20.05.2009 itself was an under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, further exercise is not permissible. It will be wholly unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker who is admittedly completed 20 years of continuous service of pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003. However, deduction of 6 years or for that matter, any period to calculate 20 years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable. The entire exercise of issuing the notification should be in a positive manner so as to ensure that maximum benefit is given to the incumbents who undoubtedly belong to the economically lower strata of the society. It should have been the endeavour of the State not to make a further classification of Muster Roll Workers who have completed 20 years of continuous service by introducing the condition of deduction of 6 years of casual service. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization.

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