WP(C)/594/2023
2025 Latest Caselaw 62 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/594/2023 on 1 May, 2025

                                                                                      Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010014352023




                                                                            2025:GAU-AS:5351




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

                                     WP(C) 594/2023

Md Hussain Ali @ Hussen Ali
S/O- Late Helasa Sekh,
R/O- Village- Barkaliajhar,
P.O- Patharughat, P.S.- Mangaldai,
Dist.- Darrang (Assam),
Pin- 784125




                                                        ..............................Petitioner


                      -VERSUS-

1. The State of Assam
Represented By the Principal Secretary
to the Govt. Of Assam,
Transport Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Commissioner and Secretary
to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Commissioner and Secretary
                                                                          Page No.# 2/18

to the Govt. of Assam
Pension and Public Grievances Department
Dispur, Guwahati- 6.
4. The Managing Director, ASTC,
Paltan Bazar, Guwahati- 781008.
5. The Principal Accountant General ( A and E)
Assam, Maidamgaon, Beltola
Guwahati- 29.
6. The Divisional Superintendent, ASTC
Tezpur
Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam)
Pin- 784001.
7. The Station Superintendent, ASTC
Mangaldai, Dist.- Darrang (Assam)
Pin- 784125.
8. The Treasury Officer
Mangaldai Treasury
Dist.- Darrang(Assam).
Pin- 784125
                                                 .......................Respondents

With

WP(C) 1183/2023 Sreemanta Kalita Son of Late Suryakanta Kalita Resident of Durgasarovar Kamakhya Gate Guwahati District- Kamrup (M) Assam, Pin- 781009.

-Versus-

1. The State of Assam.

Page No.# 3/18

Represented by t he Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Transport Department Dispur, Guwahati-781006 Assam.

2. The Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Assam, Finance Department Dispur, Guwahati-6 Assam.

3. The Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Assam Pension and Public Grievances Department Dispur, Guwahati- 6 Assam.

4. The Managing Director, ASTC Paltan Bazar, Guwahati- 781008 Assam.

5. The Deputy Secretary Govt. of Assam, Transport Department Dispur, Guwahati-781006 Assam.

6.The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, ASTC Paltan Bazar Guwahati- 781001.

................................... Respondents.

Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Kalita, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. K.R. Patgiri, Advocate

Advocates for the respondents: Ms. M.D. Borah, SC, Transport Department.

Ms. R. Deka, SC, ASTC.

Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, SC, Accountant General, Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Finance Department.

Page No.# 4/18

Date of hearing: 02.04.2025 Date of Judgment: 01.05.2025

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1183/2023 and Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.594/2023. Also heard Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department, Ms. R. Deka, standing counsel for the ASTC, Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the Accountant General, Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

2. The challenge made in these writ petitions is to the letter dated 30.07.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department, whereby, the claim of the petitioners for pension have been rejected, as the petitioners are found not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.03.1970 as per Circular No. TMV 138/70/5 dated 31.03.1970.

3. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar on fact and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The case, in brief, in WP(C) 1183/2023, is that the petitioner has joined the service in the Transport Department, Govt. of Assam on 28.06.1969 as Assistant Station Superintendent. The petitioner was deputed to the service of Assam State Road Transport Corporation (herein referred to as Corporation in Page No.# 5/18

short) in the year 1971 and he was serving in the said corporation on deputation till 1976. It is contended that although, the petitioner was under

deputation in the Corporation, he has rendered the State for 7 years 6 months and 3 days till 01.01.1977. After 01.01.1977, the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the Corporation. The petitioner has retired from service on 20.09.2000 as Divisional Superintendent, in the Corporation.

5. The petitioner after retirement has submitted an application for release of pensionary benefits. However, the respondent authorities vide impugned letter dated 30.07.2022 has rejected the case of the petitioner by informing that the petitioner is not eligible for pension, as he has not completed 5 years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.3.1970. Therefore, he is found to be not eligible for claiming pension.

6. In WP(C) No. 594/2023, the petitioner was serving as a Grade-IV employee in the State Transport Department, w.e.f 31.03.1967 to 31.12.1976. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed in the Assam State Transport Corporation and promoted to the post of Mech. Grade-III and served till his retirement on 31.07.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and however, the petitioner was not granted with the pension. On several approaches, the respondent authorities vide impugned letter dated 30.07.2002 has rejected the claim of the petitioner by informing that the petitioner is not eligible for pension, as he has not completed 5 years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.3.1970. Therefore, he is found to be not eligible for claiming pension.

7. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1183/2023 submits that the petitioner was released on 31.12.1976 by the Page No.# 6/18

State Transport Department who was deputed to the Corporation vide Notification No. TMV/138/70/5 dated 31.3.1970. In view of such a position the petitioner was an employee under the State Government for 7 years 6 months 3 days and he became a full fledged employee of the Corporation with effect from 01.01.1977. As such, the refusal to grant pension to the petitioner is not tenable. He submits that the petitioner was a full fledged employee of the Corporation (ASRTC) till his retirement from service on 20.09.2000 and as such the petitioner is eligible for pension under the Corporation if not eligible under the State Transport Department.

8. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that in the year 2005, the government through Pension and Public Grievance Department issued an office memorandum vide No. PPG(P)129/2004/84 dated 30.11.2005, wherein it was ordered for payment of family pension to the state govt. employees permanently absorbed in the state public sector undertakings. By the said notification vide clause 1, it is provided that the families of government servant permanently absorbed in the state public sector undertakings will be eligible for family pension limiting the family pension to 30% of the last pay drawn on the date of permanent absorption for the period served under the State govt. subject to lowest ceiling of minimum pension fixed by the State govt. Further, vide clause 4, it is provided that the family pension will be admissible from only one source, i.e. either from the State government or public sector undertakings and not from both. He submits that the government returned the pension papers of the petitioner without considering the notification dated 30.11.2005 and as such, the rejection of the proposal of pension of the petitioner is not tenable and is liable to be reviewed.

9. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that it was the duty of the Page No.# 7/18

head of the department to prepare a superannuation list in every year and as soon as the list is prepared an intimation shall be sent to every officer due to retire during the next year to enable him to submit a formal application for pension. As no such list was prepared the petitioner was unaware about the pensionary benefit and also ignorant about the notifications. He submits that after retirement the petitioner was ill from various ailments and he was not in a position to physically visit the concerned office to collect the data regarding the pension and as such no pension paper was submitted prior to 2020 and submitted only when the petitioner came to know about the entitlement of his pension from either from the government or from the corporation.

10. Mr. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that after submission of the pension papers the Govt. of Assam asked twice to explain the delay of not filing pension papers earlier which was properly replied by the petitioner. The government being satisfied by the explanation given by the petitioner forwarded the matter to the State Cabinet for approval for condonation of the delay, but it appears that the govt. only considering the Clause 1 of notification dated 31.03.1970 returned the papers of the petitioner holding that the pension proposal of the petitioner cannot be considered which is illegal.

11. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner completed his service life to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and in his old age who is now of 81 years of age is now suffering from hardships and he cannot even maintain his daily livelihood. Immediately, after knowing about the notification, the petitioner applied for pension through the Accounts Officer, ASTC and after verification of the pension papers the govt. lastly on 30.07.2022 returned the pension papers holding that the petitioner has not completed five years of service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.3.1970 Page No.# 8/18

which is untenable. The petitioner continued his service to the State Transport Department for more than seven years and after that he was permanently absorbed in the Corporation and as such he is entitled for pensionary benefit either from the State Government or from the Corporation.

12. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that as per Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the Governor is empowered to condone the deficiency of not exceeding 12 months in the qualifying service of an officer for the purpose of pension. The petitioner had worked 7 years 6 months at the State transport department and permanently absorbed in the Corporation and as such considering the case of absorption in the corporation, the Govt. ought to have considered the pension papers of the petitioner.

13. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the notification dated 31.03.1970 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner vide clause 1 of the said notification, but vide clause 3 of the said notification, it provides that the service of all other temporary staff who have not completed 5 years of continuous service on or before the 30th March 1970 under the government and casual employees are transferred to the corporation with effect from 31st March, 1970 on their existing scale of pay and allowances. The temporary employees will be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Govt. for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave admissible to them in their respective grades under the Corporation. Clause 4 of the said notification provides that the corporation shall be liable to pay leave salary and pension contribution in respect of the employees in accordance with the terms of Foreign Service during the period of deputation. Therefore, Clauses 3 and 4 of the Notification dated 31.03.1970 would be applicable in case of the petitioner and as such the impugned letter dated 30.07.2022 may be set aside.

Page No.# 9/18

14. Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.594/2023, while endorsing the submissions made by Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner had joined in service as Grade IV employee in the State Transport Department, Mangaldai on 31.03.1967 and worked till 31.12.1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the Corporation, joined on 01.01.1977, promoted to the post of Mech. Grade-III and he retired from service on 31.07.2002. The petitioner has worked for 9 years 9 months at the State Transport Department, Assam and worked for 25 years 7 months in the Corporation. There is no embargo to sanction of family pension as per Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 as well as Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2005. Therefore, refusing family pension to the petitioner is no doubt violation of the fundamental rights and as such interference is required for sanctioning monthly family pension with effect from December, 2005 in pursuance of the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2005 issued by the pension and Public Grievance Department, Govt. of Assam.

15. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied on the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Kabiram Rajbangshi Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 1997(1) GLT 589,

which is reproduced herein under:-

"(3) It is argued on behalf of the government Advocate that the employment of the petitioner is not substantive and permanent before 1984 and as such he is not entitled to pension. The only bar for not granting pension as will be evident is Rule 153, but that bar also does not apply in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as at the time of retirement, the service of the petitioner was duly regularised. But only condition is that he does not complete the qualifying period as required by Rules 96 and 97. But even for such a contingency proviso to Rule 31 provides as quoted above that the Government may make declaration of any kind of service to be counted towards pension. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner deserves such a treatment, otherwise it will be sheer injustice done to the petitioner as pointed out by the Page No.# 10/18

Supreme Court in AIR 1983 sc 130 (D. S. Nakara and Ore. Vs. Union of india) where in the Supreme Court pointed out that the payment of pension in a welfare state is a socio-economic justice. Justice measures providing relief when advancing the age gradually, irrevokably impires the capacity to stand upon own feet. In paragraphs 20 and 22 the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows:

"the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of line constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan prasad Vs State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634: (AIR 1971 SC 1409) wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the government but is governed by Ithe rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the offer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh. (1976) 3 SCR 360: (AIR 1976 SC 667 ). In the course of transformation of Society from deudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from undeserved want was recognised and as a first step pension was treted not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered unto the master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount (see retirement Systems for Public employees by Bleekney, page 33)."

16. On the other hand, Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department, submits that the petitioners have joined in Transport Department, Government of Assam on 28.06.1969 and 31-03-1967 and the Page No.# 11/18

petitioners are not eligible to claim and avail the benefits under Notification No. TMV.138/70/5 dated 31.03.1970 as published by Transport Department, Government of Assam as they have not completed 5 years of continuous service in the State Transport Department.

17. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel submits that the petitioners are also not eligible to claim and avail the benefits under Office Memorandum published by Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department vide No. PPG(P)129/2004/84 dated 30.11.2005 as the said Office Memorandum has not been adopted by the Assam State Transport Corporation till date and hence not applicable to Employees of the Corporation and the petitioners do not have requisite qualifying service of at least 10 years in the State Transport Department, Assam since the date of his joining in Transport Department, Government of Assam. Since the petitioners have joined the Transport Department, Government of Assam on 28.06.1969 and 31.03.1967, the petitioners have not fulfilled the requisite service period conditions so as to avail the benefit of the pension schemes as per Government norms. They are found to be not eligible for claiming pension and as such the pension claim of the petitioners cannot be considered by the Government as per norms. Therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

18. Ms. R. Deka, learned standing counsel ASTC, submits that the Corporation does not provide pension to its employees except the retirement benefits accumulated by the employees during its Service period like gratuity, leave salary, Contributory Provident fund etc. which has already been released by the Corporation to the petitioners as per the norms of the Corporation and the same has been availed by the petitioners.

19. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, has placed reliance on the case Page No.# 12/18

of Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331, which is reproduced

herein below:-

"46. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is

not covered under the rules."

20. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

21. The petitioner in WP(C) 1183/2023 Shri Sreemanta Kalita was appointed as Assistant Station Superintendent on 20.06.1969 and transfer to Corporation on 10.10.1971 and the petitioner in WP(C)594/2023 Md. Hussain Ali @ Hussen Ali was appointed as porter on 31.03.1967 and was transferred to the Corporation on 10.06.1977 and confirmed w.e.f. 30.04.1979. The petitioners have claimed that they were appointed in the State Transport Department initially and after completion of five years they were transferred to the Corporation. Therefore, they are entitled to pension and pensionary benefits.

22. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam vide impugned letter no. TMV.128/2021/103 dated 30.07.2022 intimated the petitioners that the pension proposal cannot be considered and returned therewith in view of the direction/circular no. TMV.138/70/5 dated 31.3.1970 "all permanent staff of State Transport Department Assam and such of temporary staff who has completed 5 years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on Page No.# 13/18

or before 30.3.1970 will be entitled to benefit of leave, pension, pay, seniority etc." and that the incumbent are found to have not completed 5 years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 30.3.1970, as such the petitioners are found to be not eligible for claiming pension.

23. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, the issue to be determined is as to whether the petitioners are eligible for pension and pensionary benefits. The issue would revolve around or hinges on the order of the Governor of Assam dated 31.03.1970, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government of Assam has issued a direction to the Corporation relating to the recruitment conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees who have been transferred to the Corporation. In order to appreciate, the directions issued and notified by the order of the Governor of Assam, dated 31.03.1970 is reproduced herein below:-

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR

No. TMY. 138/70/5 Dated Shillong, the 31st March, 70

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950), the Government of Assam after consultation with the Assam State Road Transport Corporation hereby gives the following directions to the said corporation relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees who have been transferred to the corporation, namely:-

(1) All permanent staff of the State Transport Department, Assam and such of the temporary staff as had completed 5 years of continuous service in the state transport department, Assam on or before the 30th March 1970 are deputed to the corporation on foreign service, the terms and conditions of which are laid down in FRs & SRs. They shall be entitled to the benefit of their previous service under the government for the purpose of leave, pension, pay, Page No.# 14/18

seniority and other services benefits to the extent admissible to their respective categories.

(2) (a) The deputation of the employees of the state transport department to the corporation as per (1) above for a period of one year without any deputation allowance.

(b) The deputation of the employees to the corporation shall not be amount to interruption of service and shall not entail any loss of seniority previously held by the employees.

(c) Benefits regarding leave and other conditions of service including these relating to provident fund, pension gratuity and other benefits applicable to such employees Immediately before the deputation shall be continued.

(d) During the period of deputation, the employees will draw their grade pay with other allowances as admissible under the rules and sanctioned from time to time by the government.

(e) Change in the condition of service of such employees shall not be affected to their disadvantage without the prior approval of the state government.

(f) Outstanding government dues if any will have to be paid by such employees during the period of deputation and the corporation will take responsibility to credit the amount to the Government treasury.

(g) The employees will be given the option during the period of deputation to service in the corporation under the terms and conditions of service applicable to them immediately before such transfer.

(h) If any employee fails to exercise the option within a period of three months from the date of service of notice to serve under the corporation and applies for reversion, the shadow post which will be kept vacant during his deputation shall be abolished by the government and he shall be discharged from the government service as per Rule 78 of assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969.

(3) The service of all other temporary staff who have not completed 5 years of continuous service on or before the 30th March, 1970 under the government and casual employees are transferred to the corporation with effect from 31st March, 1970 on their existing scale of pay and allowances. The temporary employees will be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Government for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave admissible to them in their respective grades under the Corporation.

(4) The Corporation shall be liable to pay leave salary and pension contribution in respect of the employees in accordance with the terms of foreign service during the period of deputation."

24. A bare perusal of the above directions reflects that all the permanent staff of the State Transport Department and such of the temporary staff who have completed 5 (five) years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 31.03.1970 are deputed to the Corporation on foreign service, the terms and conditions of which are laid down in the fundamental Page No.# 15/18

rules and supplementary rules. They shall be entitled to the benefit of their previous service under the Government for the purpose of leave, pension, pay and seniority and other service benefits to the extent admissible to their respective categories. It also provides inter-alia that the service of all other temporary staff who have not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service on or before the 30.03.1970 under the government and casual employees are transferred to the corporation with effect from 31.03.1970 on their existing scale of pay and allowances. The temporary employees will be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Government for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave admissible to them in their respective grades under the Corporation. The Corporation shall be liable to pay leave salary and pension contribution in respect of the employees in accordance with the terms of foreign service during the period of deputation.

25. Perusal of the Service Book of the petitioners reflects that the petitioner in WP(C) 1183/2023 Shri Sreemanta Kalita was appointed as Assistant Station Superintendent on 20.06.1969 and transferred to Corporation on 10.10.1971 and the petitioner in WP(C)594/2023 Md. Hussain Ali @ Hussen Ali was appointed as porter on 27.03.1967 and was transferred to the Corporation on 10.06.1977 and confirmed w.e.f 30.04.1979 respectively. Therefore, they have not completed the required 5 (five) years to be entitled under the Clause- (1) of the circular/direction dated 31.03.1970. The case of the petitioners clearly falls under the Clauses (3) and (4) of the above circular/direction. Thus, they would be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Government for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave admissible to them in their respective grades under the Corporation.

26. Having considered that the petitioners have not completed 5 (five) years Page No.# 16/18

as required by the direction issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 dated 31.03.1970, I am of the considered view that the petitioners would not be eligible for claiming pension as the circular clearly provides that all the permanent staff of the State Transport Department, Assam and such of temporary staff who has completed 5 (five) years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 31.03.1970 will be entitled to the benefit of leave, pension, pay and seniority etc.

27. The case law relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kabiram Rajbangshi Vs. State of Assam and Ors. pertains to the counting of work charge period of service towards DCRG. In that case, the Government has formulated a scheme granting benefits to the muster roll workers for regularization of service and pensionary benefits. In that context and on the facts of the case, this Court has held that there should not be discrimination between muster roll workers and work charge employees. Therefore, the case law relied on by the learned counsel appears to be misplaced and is not relevant to the present case, as the condition of transfer is regulated by the circular dated 31.03.1970.

28. In the case of Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after consideration of earlier

judgments, has held that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an Page No.# 17/18

employee who is not covered under the rules.

29. In the present case, the transfer of the petitioners are regulated by the direction issued and notified by the order of the Governor of Assam, dated 31.03.1970, which clearly provides that all the permanent staff of the State Transport Department and such of the temporary staff who have completed 5 (five) years of continuous service in the State Transport Department on or before 31.03.1970 are deputed to the Corporation on foreign service, the terms and conditions of which are laid down in the fundamental rules and supplementary rules. They shall be entitled to the benefit of their previous service under the Government for the purpose of leave, pension, pay and seniority and other service benefits to the extent admissible to their respective categories. It also provides that the service of all other temporary staff who have not completed 5 (five) years of continuous service on or before the 30.03.1970 under the government and casual employees are transferred to the corporation with effect from 31.03.1970 on their existing scale of pay and allowances. The temporary employees will be entitled to the benefit of their services under the State Government for the purpose of seniority, pay and leave admissible to them in their respective grades under the Corporation. The Corporation shall be liable to pay leave salary and pension contribution in respect of the employees in accordance with the terms of Foreign Service during the period of deputation.

30. In view of the discussions made herein above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner would not be entitled for pension as they have not completed 5 (five) years of service in the State Transport Department. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 rejecting the case of the petitioners for pension and other pensionary benefits.

Page No.# 18/18

31. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant