Allowed¶34

Smti Nirmali Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Gauhati HC14 Jun 2026WP(C)/2594/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Muster Roll employees; 20 years continuous service; pensionary benefits; Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009; New Pension Scheme; retrospective operation of court orders; Sanjita Roy W.P.(C). No. 1089/2015 2019 (2) GLT 805; Bahadur Pradhan WP(C) 4027/2019; Braza Kumar Baruah WP(C) 8713/2019; Bina Pani Das WA No. 18/2021; PHE Department Assam; Accountant General (A and E); release of pension forthwith; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2594/2026; Soumitra Saikia.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioner declared covered by the directions in the order dated 04.12.2018 in Sanjita Roy as upheld by the Division Bench order dated 26.02.2021 in WA No. 18/2021; held entitled to grant of pension; pension and other benefits directed to be released forthwith; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶34

Smti Nirmali Das Vs the State of Assam and Othrs — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the issues raised in this writ petition are covered by the relief decided in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy) and W.A. No. 18/2021, entitling the petitioner to grant of pension on the same terms.

¶24

Court's answer

Upon hearing counsel and perusing the pleadings along with the judgment dated 04.12.2018 in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy] and the Division Bench judgment dated 26.02.2021 in WA No. 18/2021 and connected appeals, this Court held that the issues raised in this writ petition stand covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No. 18/2021.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner stands covered by the directions contained in the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Sanjita Roy as upheld by the Division Bench by order dated 26.02.2021 in WA No. 18/2021; the petitioner is held entitled to grant of pension, and the pension and other benefits that may accrue to her are directed to be released forthwith, without further delay.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Single Bench (Soumitra Saikia J), WP(C)/2594/2026, order dated 15.06.2026 - writ petition allowed and disposed of. Petitioner Smti Nirmali Das (wife of Late Dipak Kumar Das), through counsel, submitted that the issues in her writ petition were akin to those decided in W.P.(C). No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, and in W.A. No.18/2021, and prayed for disposal in terms of the order in WP(C) No.1089/2015. The Court traced the chain: the Single Bench order dated 04.12.2018 in Sanjita Roy (Muster Roll employees completing 20 years' continuous service to have the entire period counted for pensionary benefits, with no deduction under the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009); the orders dated 21.06.2019 (Bahadur Pradhan, WP(C) 4027/2019) and 13.10.2019 (Braza Kumar Baruah, WP(C) 8713/2019, lead case) initially confining benefits to run from 04.12.2018; and the Division Bench judgment dated 26.02.2021 in WA No. 18/2021 (Bina Pani Das, lead case) allowing the writ appeals, setting aside the restrictive orders, and holding that an order of the Court is always retrospective unless specifically made prospective. Holding the issues covered by the Division Bench judgment in WA No. 18/2021, the Court declared the petitioner covered by the directions in the order dated 04.12.2018 in Sanjita Roy as upheld by the Division Bench, held her entitled to grant of pension, and directed that the pension and other benefits accruing to her be released forthwith, without further delay.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010090912026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2594/2026

¶6

SMTI NIRMALI DAS

¶7

W/O- LATE DIPAK KUMAR DAS R/O- BONDA GAON NEAR LAKSHI MANDIR, P.O. P.S. -PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST.-KAMRUP 781026.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006.

¶10

2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006.

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶12

PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006.

¶13

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

¶14

ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI PIN- 781029.

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI DIVISION NO.I ASSAM GUWAHATI PIN78102

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. MASUM ALAM, MS. D BORA,MS D MAHANTA,MR B M DEKA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, AG (A AND E),GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

15.06.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No.4 and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department.

¶24

2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues involved in this writ petition are akin to the issues which were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) , reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805 as well as W.A. No.18/2021 and other connected appeals which were disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 and therefore, prays to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the order passed in WP(C) No.1089/2015.

¶25

3] The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

available on record have been carefully perused.

¶28

4] Upon perusal of the pleadings available on record, it is seen that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018, passed in W.P(C) No. 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) , has held that where a Muster Roll employee has completed 20 years of continuous service, the entire period of service would be counted for pensionary benefits and no deduction of the period of service shall be made in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009.

¶29

5] Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court by following the decision taken by this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra) disposed of WP(C) 4027/2019 (Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Assam and Others) and other connected writ petitions by order dated 21.06.2019. However, later the Coordinate Bench held that since the earlier order of the Court was passed on 04.12.2018 in Sanjita Roy (supra) , the benefits granted to the petitioners in Bahadur Pradhan (supra) and the connected writ petitions will be granted only from 04.12.2018. This was followed in another set of writ petitions, which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 13.10.2019, in which the lead case being WP(C) 8713/2019 (Braza Kumar Baruah vs. the State of Assam & 6 Ors). These bunch of writ petitions were also disposed of granting similar reliefs that the petitioners therein would be entitled to get pension under the New Pension Scheme w.e.f. 04.12.2018. It is against this order dated 13.10.2019 passed in WP(C) 8713/2019 that the petitioners therein filed intra Court appeals before this Court, the lead case being WA No. 18/2021 (Bina Pani Das vs. The State of Assam & 12 Ors). The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

order dated 26.02.2021, passed in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected appeals, held that putting a condition that the benefit of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)] will be effective only from the date of the judgment i.e. 04.12.2018 is not correct and more particularly when there was no such embargo in the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)] . The Division Bench held that 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 but only interpret an existing law. The Division Bench further held that the order dated 04.12.2018 is retrospective in nature and it would, therefore, include all similarly situated Muster Roll Workers irrespective of the dates of retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier, and were already availing pension. The writ appeals were accordingly allowed and the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Benches restricting the benefit of granting pension w.e.f. the date of judgment rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) were set aside.

¶32

6] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings available on record along with the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1089/2015 [Sanjita Roy (supra)] as well as the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected appeals, this Court is of the considered view that the issues raised in this writ petition stands covered by the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected writ appeals.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

7] In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioner herein stands covered by the directions contained in the order dated 04.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Sanjita Roy (supra) as upheld by the Division Bench by the order dated 26.02.2021 passed in WA No. 18/2021 and other connected writ appeals. Accordingly, the petitioner is held to be entitled for grant of pension. The pension and other benefits that may accrue to the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, without further delay.

¶35

8] Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Smti Nirmali Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Nirmali Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

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

Dr Pramod Ranjan Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

M/S Techno Steel and Craft Industries and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Paran Pratim Gogoi Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 6 Ors.

Nandita Das Vs Ravi Kota, IAS and 4 Ors.

Sayesta Parbin Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Roushnara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.