JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned addl. senior Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioners were earlier engaged as Muster Roll Workers. Subsequently, by the order dated 6.10.2005 of the Executive Engineer, Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation), the service of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 22.7.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-60-3490-90-3670. In the said order, the name of the petitioner No. 1. Finds place at serial No. 38, whereas, the name of the petitioner No. 2 is at serial No. 64. 3. Upon being so regularized, the petitioner No. 1 had superannuated from service on 25.7.2014 and the petitioner No. 2 on 28.2.2009. 4. In the aforesaid premises, the petitioners are aggrieved to the effect that although they have superannuated from service and their services were earlier regularized, no pension had been paid to the them. 5. Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this court dated 24.7.2017 rendered in WP(C) No. 2849/2017, wherein, the aforesaid question was decided as to whether muster roll workers, who were regularized, are entitled to pension upon superannuation. 6. This court in paragraph 7 of the said order had referred to certain office memorandums dated 20.5.2009, 18.3.2010 and 4.10.2010 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam Pension and Public Grievances Department, wherein, it is provided that the decision regarding counting of past services of muster roll worker towards pension/DCRG will be w.e.f. 20.5.2009. 7. It is stated in the said judgment that the aforesaid three office memorandums also provides that the past service of the muster roll workers period shall be counted for the purpose of pension after deducting an initial period of six years of the muster roll work period. 8. It is noted that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a muster roll worker in the year 1976, whereas the petitioner No. 2 was appointed in the year 1981. As the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as muster roll worker in the year 1976 and he was regularized in the year 2005, therefore, he had served as muster roll worker for a period of 29 years. As the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as muster roll worker in the year 1976 and he was regularized in the year 2005, therefore, he had served as muster roll worker for a period of 29 years. Therefore, in order to count the service period as muster roll workers for the purpose of pension, the pension period of six years shall be deducted from the aforesaid 29 years and the balance should be taken up for its consideration. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 having served as muster roll worker for a period from 1981 to 2009, accordingly, his period of service as muster roll worker, after deducting a period of six years shall also taken into account. 9. In the earlier judgment and order of this court dated 24.7.2017 it was ordered that after deducting the initial six years of muster roll worker the cases of the petitioners therein be taken up for payment of pensionary benefit. 10. In the said writ petition, this court has noticed that the petitioners therein have more than qualifying 20 years of service even after deducting the initial six years. In the present case also, even the initial 6 years is deducted, the petitioners may still have the qualified period of 20 years for being entitled for pension. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State respondents to process the pension paper of the petitioners in accordance with law and if otherwise entitled, and if they have completed 20 years of qualifying service, to pay the pension amount within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.