GAHC010263122025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6923/2025

ATOWAR RAHMAN

S/O LATE MOJIBUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF KAZIPARA, WARD NO-4, POST OFFICE- CHAPAR, POLICE STATION-CHAPAR, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM,

PIN-783371

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

TRAINING AND PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

IRRIGATION

ASSAM

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

BONGAIGAON

ABHAYAPURI SRIJANGRAM DIVISION (IRRIGATION)

BONGAIGAON

6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BHATTACHARYYA, MR R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, AG,SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

08.12 .2025 Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No.3; Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No.6; Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5; and Ms. H. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who had served as a Muster Roll worker under the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Abhayapuri Sub Division (Irrigation), Abhayapuri. He was appointed on 01.01.1984 and he was regularized as a Khalashi with effect from 22.08.2005 by order dated 05.10.2005. He retired from his service with effect from 28.02.2021 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 37 years 2 months and 0 day and the net qualifying service was shown as 31 years 2 months and 0 day. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.25,620/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.12,810/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only). According to the petitioner the amount of pension that he has received is less than the amount he is entitled to receive under the provisions of law. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have deducted his initial 6 (six) years from the total period of his service while calculating the amount of pension payable to the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said deduction of 6 (six) years of service has been held impermissible by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. the State of Assam & Ors.) decided on 04.12.2018, and the respondent authorities were directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench marks of 20 (twenty) years then the benefit of pension should be made available to them without any deduction from the total period of service. This view was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in W.A. No.18/2021 (Binapani Das vs. the State of Assam & Ors.).

3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available on record have been perused.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position in law as has been laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra) and which was upheld in Binapani Das (supra). In Sanjita Roy (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the deduction of 6 (six) years of initial service from the total services rendered by an incumbent while calculating the period of service towards eligibility of grant of pension of Muster Roll Workers have been held to be bad. The Co-ordinate Be