ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. C. Bhattachayya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos. 2; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam for the respondent no. 6. 2. The two petitioners have stated that they were initially engaged as a Casual Muster Roll Workers in the establishment of the erstwhile Executive Engineer, Dhubri [Irrigation], Gauripur and presently O/o – Executive Engineer Gouripur – Bilashipara West Division [Irrigation], Gauripur on 01.10.1984 and 01.03.1980 respectively. The petitioners have stated that pursuant to a Government Letter no. IGN[E]104/2003/198 dated 03.10.2005 and a Finance Department’s Letter no. FEC[II]/1/2005/66 dated 22.08.2005, the respondent no. 5 vide an Office Order bearing no. GID/1/E-74/05/5 dated 06.10.2005 [Annexure-A] regularized the services of the petitioners in the same office w.e.f. 22.07.2005. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 retired from service from the office of the respondent no. 5 on 30.09.2017 and 31.08.2017 respectively on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioners have stated that the petitioner no. 1 retired on superannuation after rendering thirty-three years of service and out of the thirty-three years of service, twelve years were rendered as a regular helper and the remaining period as Casual/Muster Roll Worker. In so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he has stated that he rendered thirty-seven years and six months of service and out of the said period, twelve years were rendered as a Regular Helper. 4. When the petitioners’ pension papers were forwarded to the respondent no. 6, Pension Payment Orders [PPOs] nos. 106711250202 and 1006711250031 were issued in favour of the petitioners. In the PPO of the petitioner no. 1, the pension figure was shown as Rs. 11,720/- and the amount of gratuity was shown as Rs. 3,32,127/-. It was recorded that the gross period of service of the petitioner no. 1 was thirty-three years and his net qualifying service was shown as twenty-seven years with his last pay as Rs. 23,430/-. With the above figures, the net pension amount payable to the petitioner no. 1 was worked out as Rs. 11,720/- w.e.f. 01.10.2017 in the PPO. The respondent authorities had shown an amount of Rs. 1 was thirty-three years and his net qualifying service was shown as twenty-seven years with his last pay as Rs. 23,430/-. With the above figures, the net pension amount payable to the petitioner no. 1 was worked out as Rs. 11,720/- w.e.f. 01.10.2017 in the PPO. The respondent authorities had shown an amount of Rs. 24,030/- as excess drawal of pension from arrear pensions of Rs. 2,24,558/- w.e.f. 01.10.2017 to 28.02.2019. 5. In the Pension Payment Order [PPO] in favour of the petitioner no. 2, the pension amount drawable was shown as Rs. 11,720/- and the amount of gratuity was shown as Rs. 3,87,482/-. The petitioner no. 2’s gross service period was shown as thirty-seven years and net qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension was shown as thirty-one years six months. The last pay of the petitioner no. 2 was shown as Rs. 23,430/-. With the above figures, the net pension amount payable to the petitioner no. 2 was worked out at Rs. 11,720/- w.e.f. 01.09.2017. The respondent authorities also shown an amount of Rs. 25,015/- as excess drawal of pension from arrear pension Rs. 2,37,464/- w.e.f. 01.09.2017 to 28.02.2019. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that an Office Memorandum no. PPG[P]88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 of the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Government of Assam, it was decided to exclude initial period of six years from past services rendered by Muster Roll Workers for the purpose of working out pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. The said Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009 was put to challenge in a batch of writ petitions including [ Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and others , W.P. [C] No. 1089/2015 ]. It was contended that the decision to exclude the initial period of six years of service as Muster Roll Worker qua the requirement of 20 years of service as a pre-requisite for being eligible for pension was arbitrary. 7. The batch of writ petitions including W.P. [C] No. 1089/2015, was disposed of by a common Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018. The coordinate bench after taking into consideration the fact that to be eligible for pension, the Casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized, should complete twenty years of total service, has observed that the deduction of initial period of six years is unreasonable and unfair. 8. The coordinate bench after taking into consideration the fact that to be eligible for pension, the Casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized, should complete twenty years of total service, has observed that the deduction of initial period of six years is unreasonable and unfair. 8. It has been held that it would be unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker, who had admittedly completed twenty years of continuous service, from the benefit flowing out the initial six years. The writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners, who were Muster Roll Workers, and has further observed that if such service period means the bench-mark of twenty year without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made available to them. 9. It has been submitted at the Bar that when the common Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 was challenged before the Division Bench in a [ Binapani Das vs. State of Assam and others , Writ Appeal No. 18/2021 ], it was upheld by the Division Bench in its Judgment dated 26.02.2021. 10. After the Division Bench Judgment upholding the common Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 the position which has been crystallized is that no deduction of the initial six years of service is to be made from the total period of service rendered by an incumbent as Muster Roll Worker while calculating the period of service for calculating pension and other retirement benefits. It has been held in Sanjita Roy [supra] that once the benefit has been granted by way of Judgment, the same cannot be curtailed to deny the benefit to other similarly situated persons, when original judgment has not restricted such benefit by reiterating the settled principles that the orders of courts are always retrospective in nature unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. 11. While upholding the common Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 of the learned Single Judge in Sangita Roy [supra], the Division Bench in Binapani Das [supra] has observed as under :- 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. 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 judgment [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. 12. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is stated that vide letters, both dated 06.04.2022, the respondent no. 5 had forwarded the applications of the petitioners to the respondent no. 6 with the request to sanction revised Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity by taking into account that while issuing the Pension Payment Orders [PPOs] earlier to the petitioners, the initial six years period of Muster Roll service was deducted as non-qualifying service. 13. The petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition with a grievance that despite their cases were forwarded as far back as on 06.04.2022, fresh Pension Payment Orders [PPOs] have not been issued to the petitioners after recalculating the total period of qualifying services for the purpose of pension by including the initial six years’ period of service rendered by the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers. 14. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam appearing for the respondent no. 6 has submitted, on the basis of written instructions received by him, that an employee of the Assam Government requires minimum 25 years of qualifying service to receive full quantum of monthly pension. He has submitted that in case of the petitioner no. 1, the net qualifying service after deducting initial six years of service was 27 years whereas for the petitioner no. 2, the net qualifying service after deduction of initial six years of service was 31 years 6 months. According to Mr. He has submitted that in case of the petitioner no. 1, the net qualifying service after deducting initial six years of service was 27 years whereas for the petitioner no. 2, the net qualifying service after deduction of initial six years of service was 31 years 6 months. According to Mr. Chakraborty, both the petitioners’ qualifying service was above the benchmark of 25 years and hence, they have already been allowed full pension at 50% of the last basic pay. According to him, only difference would be in the calculation of the gratuity amounts for the petitioners. 15. As the Division Bench has already clarified that the observations and directions made in the Judgment in Sanjita Roy [supra] would be retrospective in nature and the two petitioners’ pension amounts and other retirement benefits like gratuity had been worked out earlier by excluding initial period of six years of service they had rendered as Muster Roll Workers, the respondent authorities including the respondent no. 6, have to redo the exercise of calculation of the pension amounts and other retirement benefits like gratuity, etc. in the cases of the petitioners after including the initial period of six years of service the petitioners had rendered as Muster Roll Workers. If upon redoing the exercise, it is found that the amounts of pension and other retirement benefits including gratuity, etc. are to be payable at an enhanced rate after taking into consideration the petitioners’ entire period of services as qualifying services in view of the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy [supra] and Binapani Das [supra], then the same are to be worked out and released to them with the issuance of fresh PPOs, as expeditiously as possible, but within an outer limit of 3 [three] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioners. 16. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.