GAHC010009862026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/604/2026 MADON CH RAY S/O-LATE KESHAB CHANDRA RAY, RESIDENT OF GAURIPUR, WARD NO-4, POST OFFICE-GAURIPUR, POLICE STATION-GOURIPUR, DISTRICT-DHUBRI,ASSAM, PIN-783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS 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 ANDSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVEREFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION PUBLICGRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3

5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICIALIRRIGATION GUWAHATI-3

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHUBRI GOLAKGANJ-GOURIPURIRRIGATION GOURIPURDIVISION

7:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AAND E)

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

ORDER

09.02 .2026 Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who had served as a casual Muster Roll worker under the office of the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gouripur. He was appointed on 01.02.1992 and he was regularized as a Helper with effect from 22.07.2005 by order dated 06.10.2005. He retired from his service with effect from 29.02.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 32 years 1 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 26 years 1 months and 0 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs.25,600/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.15,300/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand three hundred 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. 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. An observation was made that the pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the respondents to re-calculate the admissible pension and admissible gratuity in respect of the petitioner.

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

5. 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 Coordinate 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 Coordinate Bench held that such deduction of init