Tarun Daimary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010073362024

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2075/2024

¶6

TARUN DAIMARY S/O- LATE JANGA DAIMARY, R/O- VILL. BILPAR, P.O.- KALAKUCHI, MOUZA- PUB-BAKSA, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DISTRICT- BAKSA.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT (PWRD), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶9

2:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM P.W.R.D. (ADUDIT) BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003.

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781036.

¶12

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D.

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

NALBARI RURAL ROAD DIVISION NALBARI

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH,MR. B C DEKA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD, SC, AG

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

09.06.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. KK Medhi, learned counsel appearing on

¶21

behalf of Mr. SK Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E).

¶22

2 . The prayer in this writ petition is for grant of full pension and other retiral benefits by considering the total length of service reckoned from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner in the service of the PWD, Nalbari, State Road Division, Nalbari.

¶23

3. This writ petitioner had served as a Labour on Muster Roll basis in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural Road Division, Dhamdhama. He was appointed on 23.04.1987 and his service was regularized on 07.10.2005 with effect from 22.07.2005 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nalbari. He retired from his service with effect from 31.05.2007 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 14 years 01 month 09 days whereas the net qualifying

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

service of the petitioner was 20 years 01 month 9 days. 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.).

¶26

4. By earlier order, the respondents were permitted opportunities to complete their instructions in the matter. However, Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, submits that he has received instructions and he has submitted before the Court that he be permitted to bring it on record. However, on a pointed query by the Court, Mr. Dhar submits that the instructions relate to a position prior to the judgment of Sanjita Roy (supra) which stood upheld by the Division Bench in the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to close this matter at this stage declining the prayer of Mr. R. Dhar for filing an affidavit.

¶27

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

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

6. 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 initial period of 6 (six) years of service from the total period of services rendered is contrary to law. The judgment in Sanjita Roy (supra) was passed on 04.12.2018. In subsequent writ petitions filed, other Coordinate Benches held that the benefits of Sanjita Roy (supra) will be effective only from the date of the said Judgment i.e. 04.12.2018. One such order was brought to the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.18/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra) (W.A. No.18/2021) by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 while upholding the proposition laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra), further held that once the benefit has been granted by way of a judgment, the same cannot be curtailed to deny the benefit of other similarly situated persons when the original judgment itself did not restrict such benefit. It was held that the orders of the Courts are always retrospective in nature unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment and Order is extracted herein below:

¶30

“9. An order of the court is always retrospective in nature, unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. This is because the courts do not legislate, they only interpret an existing law. This is unlike the laws made by the State Legislature and the Parliament, which are always prospective in nature, unless again, the law itself makes it retrospective. The original judgement (dated 04.12.2018), passed in WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others), does not give

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

benefit to the petitioners from a prospective date. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated muster roll workers irrespective of their dates of retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier, and were already availing pension.”

¶33

7. That apart, the Government of Assam by Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2010 provided that the part of their past Muster Roll services prior to regularisation have to be counted for the purpose of pension in terms of PPG Department’s OM No.PPG(P)88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation by the regularized Muster Roll Workers.

¶34

8. Considering the limited prayer before this Court and upon careful perusal of the writ petition including the judgments passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra).

¶35

9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found to be correct then the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioner shall be calculated as continuous period of service and the amount of pension/provisional pension and all other dues payable to the petitioner be revaluated and the appropriate amount payable to the petitioner taking into consideration his entire period of service in view of the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra) be released to him without any further delay. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

¶40

Tarun Daimary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Daimary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bharat Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Bhart Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Bhart Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mustafizur Rahman Vs Borsing Rongpi and 2 Ors.

Jyotsna Mayee Saikia Vs Binita Pegu, I.A.S.

On the Death of Pabitra Jiban Baruah His Legal Heir- Sri Samadeet Baruah Vs M/S. Sizzler Retail and Leisure'S Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.