JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Ms. Dimpi Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. D. S. Neog, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 & 6. 2. As consented to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present appeal is being taken-up for final consideration and is being disposed of by this order. 3. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)2943/2019, limiting the pension receivable by the appellant w.e.f. 04.12.2018, and not from the date of his superannuation which had so occasioned on 30.09.2015. 4. The appellant, herein, was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in Morigaon Sub-Division of the Irrigation Department w.e.f. 01.12.1992. The service of the appellant was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 and he was permitted to draw his pay and allowances in the scale of pay prescribed with effect from the date of his such regularization. The appellant, herein, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from his service w.e.f. 30.09.2015. 5. In terms of the policy decision in place at the relevant point of time when the appellant, herein, had proceeded on superannuation, service rendered by a Muster Roll Worker while being permissible to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for quantification of pension and pensionary benefits; a period of 6(six) years of such muster roll service rendered by the employee, was required to be deducted. Although the appellant, herein, had, on the date of his superannuation, completed more than 22 years and 10 months of service, both as a Muster Roll Worker and as a regularized employee, on deduction of 6(six) years from the Muster Roll period of service so rendered by the appellant, herein, his service having fallen below the requisite 20(twenty) years, he was only authorized a terminal gratuity by the Accountant General(A&E), Assam, and was denied his pension and other pensionary benefits. 6. 6. Person similarly situated like the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1089/2015 [ Sanjita Roy v. State of Assam & ors .], assailing the decision of the authorities towards deduction of 6(six) years from the service rendered as a Muster Roll Worker prior to regularization of such service for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for authorizing pension and pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment & order, dated 04.12.2018, was pleased to allow the said writ petition being WP(c)1089/2015, by holding that the deduction of 6(six) years from the service rendered by a Muster Roll Worker while calculating 20(twenty) years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable and fair. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service rendered by the petitioner, therein, as a Muster Roll Worker and if such service meets the benchmark of 20(twenty) years without any deduction, therefrom; the benefit of pension should be made available to her. 7. The appellant, herein, thereafter, instituted WP(c)2943/ 2019, praying for being authorized his pension and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 30.09.2015, in the light of the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra). The said writ petition being WP(c)2943/2019 was taken-up for consideration and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 03.10.2019, while allowing the prayer of the petitioner for being authorized, pension and pensionary benefits; it was provided that such benefits would be so authorized to the petitioner only w.e.f. 04.12.2018 i.e. from the date of passing of the decision in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra). 8. At this stage, it is to be noted that persons similarly situated like the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court, praying for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits in the light of the decision of the Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra). One of such writ petitions was WP(c)4027/ 2019[ Bahadur Pradhan v. State of Assam & ors .]. One of such writ petitions was WP(c)4027/ 2019[ Bahadur Pradhan v. State of Assam & ors .]. The said writ petition being WP(c)4027/2019, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 21.06.2019, by directing the respondent authorities to authorize to the petitioner, therein, the pension and pensionary benefits, but, had limited the grant of such benefits to the petitioner only w.e.f. 04.12.2018. 9. Similar nature of directions was also passed by the learned Single Judge in other writ petitions being WP(c)1089/2015 and WP(c)8713/2019, which were also disposed of by the learned Single Judge by authorizing the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners, therein, but limiting the same to be so granted w.e.f. 04.12.2018. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge; the petitioners, therein, had instituted intra-Court appeals before this Court including WA No. 18/2021 [ Binapani Das v. State of Assam & ors. ]. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 26.02.2021, proceeded to consider the aforesaid writ appeal being WA No. 18/2021 along with other analogous writ appeals and vide order, dated 26.02.2021, was pleased to allow the writ appeals interfering with the directions passed by the learned Single Judge limiting the authorization of pension and pensionary benefits to the appellants, therein, w.e.f. 04.12.2018. 11. The operative portion of the order, dated 26.02.2021, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Binapani Das (supra), being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 8. In our considered view, putting a condition that the benefit of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others) would be effective only from 04.12.2018 is not correct, 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 vs. State of Assam and Others), which held that the deduction of six years of service was wrong. 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. 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.” 12. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. As noticed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 03.10.2019, in WP(c)2943/2019, while allowing the claim of the appellant, herein, for being authorized the pension and pensionary benefits following the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra); had limited the grant of such benefits only w.e.f. 04.12.2018 and not with effect from the date of his superannuation which had so occasioned on 30.09.2015. Applying the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Binapani Das (supra), to the facts of the present case; it is revealed that the appellant, herein, is similarly situated like the appellant in the case of Binapani Das (supra) and accordingly, the appellant, herein, would also be entitled to the similar benefits as granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 26.02.2021. 14. In view of the above position; we are of the considered view that the order, dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)2943/2019, directing authorization of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner(appellant, herein), but, limiting such benefits to be so granted w.e.f. 04.12.2018, would call for an interference. 15. Accordingly, the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 03.10.2019, in WP(c)2943/2019, to the extent of grant of pension and pensionary benefits to the appellant, herein, only w.e.f. 04.12.2018, stands set aside. 16. The respondent authorities are now required to authorize to the appellant, herein, his pension and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 30.09.2015. 17. 16. The respondent authorities are now required to authorize to the appellant, herein, his pension and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 30.09.2015. 17. The pension and pensionary benefits now due to the appellant, herein, would be computed by the respondent authorities and released to the appellant within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal stands disposed of.