WP(C) 4990/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to ease the stalemate due to the misplacement of his Service Book, is not getting pensionary benefits. Thou gh meanwhile, he admittedly stands supernnumerated from service. I have heard Mr. DP Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajsaikia , learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2. Also heard Mr. D Barua, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. In short, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition is that th e petitioner who had been initially appointed as Enforcement Checker in the Tran sport Department of the State (hereinafter for short referred to as the Departme nt) in the year 1970, was promoted to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector in the year 1993. By way of disciplinary measure he was dismissed from service vide o rder dated 15.03.99. His departmental appeal against the same having been allowe d partially, the penalty was forwarded and converted into one of stoppage of thr ee increments with cumulative effect consequentially. The petitioner was reins tated in service vide order dated 04.05.2001 contending that inspite thereof he had not been allowed to join his service, the petitioner approached with WP(C) N o. 6493/2002 which was disposed of on 26.02.2003 directing the respondent author ities to reinstate him in service complaining that the said order too had remain ed unattended, the petitioner approached this Court with an application for cont empt which it is submitted at the Bar is presently pending for final disposal. According to the petitioner he is meanwhile, attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.3004. As the respondent authorities have not taken necessary steps eit her to reinstate him in service or to compute and disburse his retiral benefits he (petitioner) is before this Court for redress. The Respondents No.1 and 2 in their counter while substantially admitting the fa cts pertaining to the disciplinary action taken against him, have pleaded that h is reinstatement has not been permissible for misplacement of his Service Book w hich according to them eventually is traceable to his custody. They have conten ded that after a massive search the Service Book of the petitioner was traced ou t and subsequently forwarded to the Office of the District Transport Officer, Ka mrup, Guwahati on 29.06.92 and that the same was handed over to the petitioner t o carry the same on his behalf. The answering respondents have maintained that inspite of several request made t hereafter, the petitioner did not return his Service Book. They, however assert that his date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is 01.07.1942 and accord ingly the date of his superannuation from service would be on 01.07.2001. They h ave also asserted that the petitioner has not completed the essential formalitie s for release of his pension and other retiral benefits, for which necessary ste ps in that regard could not be taken. The Respondent No.3 in his affidavit in essence has stated that pension papers n ot having been received by his office, the question of reinstatement thereto doe s not arise. The petitioner in his reply has denied any particular allegation that the Servic e Book is in his custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the pleaded stand has u rged that he (petitioner) is prepared to have his pensionary benefit computed on the basis of his death of birth that is 01.07.1942. The learned counsel on ins tructions has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comp ly with the legal formalities in this regard as required of him. Responding to the above, Mr. Rajsaikia, has submitted that though the petitioner , before initiating the process for his pensionary benefits ought to return the Service Book, the departmental authority as a special cause would not insist the refore. However, the petitioner would comply with the other legal and procedur al formalities for the purpose of computing of his pensionary and other reiteral benefits and if that is done, the respondent authority would post the same by t aking his date of birth to be 01.07.1942 and that of his superannuation as 01.07 .2001. Mr. Baruah, has submitted that if necessary papers are forwarded to the office of the Respondent No.3 as required, he has no reason to entertain the same. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the n ature of the grievance of the petitioner, this Court considers it expedient to c lose this proceeding with the following directions- 1) the petitioner would forthwith take necessary steps in compliance with t he requirements of law and procedure, so as to facilitate the process of computi ng and disburse of his reiteral benefits due to him; 2) if said steps are taken, the Respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Transport De partment, Govt. of Assam) would cause steps to be taken to process the same in a ccordance with law; 3) on the completion of the exercise as above, the aforementioned authority would forward the necessary papers to the office of the Respondent No.3, i.e. A ccountant General (A & E), Guwahati for the needful. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, his (petitioner’s) claim for pensionary benefit would be computed on the basis of his date of birth i.e. 01.07.1942 and that his superannuation i.e. 01.07.2001. In doing so, if need b e the concerned departmental authority would create a superannumerary post to ac commodate the petitioner for the period for which he ought to be in service in t erms of the order dated 26.02.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 6493/2002. As the matter relates to release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the p rocess as indicated hereinabove should be completed, as a whole, from the date o n which the petitioner completes the aforesaid formalities as required in law. No costs.