Gazi Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010041532026

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1389/2026

¶6

GAZI RAHMAN

¶7

SON OF LATE NASKAR ALI SHEIKH, RESIDENT OF GOURIPUR WARD NO-2, POLICE STATION- GOURIPUR, DISTRIC, ASSAM, PIN- 783371

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI

¶13

GUWAHATI-3

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOURIPUR-BILASHIPARA WEST DIVISION (IRRIGATION)

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

GOURIPUR

¶17

6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-2

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BHATTACHARYYA, MR R DAS

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG (A AND E),SC, IRRIGATION

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

11.03.2026

¶23

Mr. C. Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General; Ms. M Kalita, learned Government Advocate for the State; Ms. A Barthakur, learned counsel appears for the Finance and Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.

¶24

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a casual Muster Roll Worker under the Office of the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gouripur on 18.06.1986 and wa subsequently regularized vide Order dated 06.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division, Irrigation in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-3490-90-3670 per month w.e.f. 22.07.2005 along with admissible allowances. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to serve in the said post and received salaries as revised by the respondent authorities from time to time until he retired on attending the age of superannuation after rendering more than 30 years of continuous service. When the pension paper was prepared, the gross period of service was shown as 34 years 13 days and the

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

net qualifying service was shown as 28 years 13 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as Rs. 20970 & 3900 GP. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that counting of past service by deducting the initial period of service 6 years is un-reasonable. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.

¶27

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2019) 2 GLT 805 and, therefore, the writ petition be disposed of in the light of the observations made therein. 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.).

¶28

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 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

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

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:

¶31

“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 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.”

¶32

5. 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.

¶33

6. 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

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

(supra).

¶36

7. 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, gratuity and all other retiral benefits 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.

¶37

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

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Gazi Rahman v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gazi Rahman v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Raja Rai @ Rajnarayan Rai Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Paresh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sri Akhil Kumar Sarma Id NO19852607 Vs the State of Assam Ors.

Bharati Ramchiary Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bijoy Rabha Vs Bharat Kumar Vaishnav and Ors.

Sri Anis Rasul Mazumder Vs the State of Assam