WA 105/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY [Katakey, J.] The writ petitioner in WP(C) No.3320/2007 has filed this appeal challeng ing the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition praying for directing the respondents to allow her to continue and/or reinstate her as work charged typis t in terms of the office memorandum dated 30.10.2001 issued by the Principal Sec retary to the Govt. of Assam in Finance Department, contending inter alia that s he was initially engaged as typist on 19.09.1994 for a period of 2(two) months, which was subsequently extended by another 1(one) month and thereafter vide orde r dated 31.10.1994 she was again engaged as work charged typist for a period of 1(one) month in the office of the Executive Engineer, Dibrugarh Electrical Divis ion (Irrigation). According to the appellant such period of engagement was exten ded by issuing various orders of extension till 1996, with the approval of the C hief Engineer, Irrigation, Govt. of Assam. It has further been contended that th ough the Govt. of Assam in Finance (Budget) Department vide office memorandum da ted 11.10.1995 directed all the Heads of the Department to dispense with the ser vices of all the persons engaged as work charged employees on or after 01.04.199 3, since her services were required by the Executive Engineer, an approval was s ought for from the Chief Engineer, Irrigation for retention of the appellant alo ng with few others in service, even though she was engaged as work charged emplo yee on or after 01.04.1993. The said approval having not been granted, the Execu tive Engineer vide order dated 09.09.1996 terminated the services of the appella nt, which, however, was challenged before this Court in Civil Rule No.5021/1996, wherein an interim order dated 08.10.1996 was passed directing the respondents that if the appellant was working, she shall not be removed from service until f urther order and she shall be allowed to work, with a further direction to pay h er salary in accordance with law. The further case of the appellant is that purs uant to such interim direction issued vide order dated 08.10.1996, the Executive Engineer, Dibrugarh Electrical Division (Irrigation) on 09.12.1996 passed an or der allowing her to resume the duty with immediate effect till disposal of the C ivil Rule No.5021/1996. It is also contended that while she was serving as work charged typist, the Executive Engineer vide order dated 28.03.2001 discontinued her service with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 11.09.2000. Accordin g to the appellant the Govt. of Assam, thereafter, took a policy decision allowi ng the work charged employees engaged after 01.04.1993 and who have completed 5( five) years of continuous service as on 24.01.2001 to continue in service in the respective capacities, which has been circulated vide office memorandum dated 3 0.10.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Depar tment. The appellant, therefore, had filed the writ petition seeking the relief as aforesaid, based on the said office memorandum dated 30.10.2001 (Annexure-H t o the writ petition). 3. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.12.2007 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by holding that she having not continuously work ed as work charged employee for a period of 5(five) years as on 24.01.2001, is n ot entitled to the benefit of said office memorandum dated 30.10.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in Finance Department. 4. We have heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the appellant as well a s Mrs. B. Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that she h aving been engaged as work charged typist vide order dated 31.10.1994 issued by the Executive Engineer and though vide order dated 09.09.1996 issued by the said authority, the appellant was sought to be terminated from service, she having b een reinstated as work charged typist vide order dated 09.12.1996 issued by the Executive Engineer pursuant to the interim direction contained in the order date d 08.10.1996 passed in Civil Rule No.5021/1996 and she having admittedly continu ed at least up to 11.09.2000, with effect from which date her services were disc ontinued by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 28.03.2001, she is entitled to the benefit of the Government’s decision as reflected in the office memorandu m dated 31.10.2001, as she had completed almost 6(six) years of service on 11.09 .2000. According to the learned counsel, in fact, there cannot be any retrospect ive discontinuance of the service of the appellant as has been done by the Execu tive Engineer vide order dated 28.03.2001. The learned counsel, therefore, submi ts that the appellant is entitled to a direction as sought for in the writ petit ion. 6. Supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Sta te counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that to get the benefit o f the decision of the Government as reflected in the office memorandum dated 30. 10.2001, two conditions are required to be fulfilled, firstly that the person co ncerned was engaged after 01.04.1993 and secondly such person has completed 5(fi ve) years of continuous service as work charged employee as on 24.01.2001. In th e instant case, according to the learned counsel, it is evident from the avermen ts made by the appellant in the writ petition that she was initially engaged as work charged typist by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 31.10.1994 and he r services were discontinued w.e.f. 09.09.1996, vide order passed by the Executi ve Engineer. According to the learned State counsel pursuant to the order of int erim direction issued on 08.10.1996 in Civil Rule No.5021/1996, the appellant wa s allowed to resume her duties as work charged typist w.e.f. 09.10.1996, as evid ent from the order passed by the Executive Engineer. The learned State counsel, therefore, submits that even assuming that there cannot be any retrospective dis continuance of the services of the appellant w.e.f. 11.09.2000 as has been done by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 28.03.2001 and such order of disconti nuance would be effective from the date of the order i.e. 28.03.2001, the appell ant is not entitled to the benefit of the office memorandum dated 30.10.2001, as her services as work charged typist was not continuous for a period of 5(five) years, there being gap of 3(three) months between 09.09.1996 and 09.12.1996 and from 09.12.1996 she having not completed 5(five) years. 7. It appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the co ntention of the appellant relating to the 5(five) years of continuous service, w hich is the condition precedent for giving the benefit of the office memorandum dated 30.10.2001, has not been accepted. It appears from the materials made avai lable before this Court that though the appellant was engaged as work charged ty pist vide order dated 31.10.1994, her engagement was discontinued w.e.f. 09.09.1 996 by even dated order passed by the Executive Engineer. The appellant was, how ever, allowed to resume her duties with immediate effect vide order dated 09.12. 1996 issued by the Executive Engineer, pursuant to the interim direction contain ed in the order dated 08.10.1996 passed in Civil Rule No.5021/1996. It is, there fore, evident that the appellant was out of service from 09.09.1996 to 09.12.199 6. The appellant’s service was eventually discontinued by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 28.03.2001 w.e.f. 11.09.2000. The said order dated 28.03.2001 discontinuing the services of the appellant with retrospective effect, however, has not been challenged by her. Even assuming that there cannot be any retrospec tive discontinuance of service and such discontinuance has to be treated with ef fect from the date of passing of such order, in this case 28.03.2001, the appell ant had not completed the 5(five) years continuous service w.e.f. 09.12.1996 i.e . the date when she was allowed to resume the duties with immediate effect pursu ant to the interim direction issued on 08.10.1996. 8. The grant of benefit of the decision of the Government as reflected in t he office memorandum dated 30.10.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary to the G ovt. of Assam in Finance Department being dependant on the fulfillment of the co ndition of completion of 5(five) years of continuous service as on 24.01.2001, t he appellant is not entitled to the benefit of such decision of the Government f or allowing such employee to continue despite their engagement after 01.04.1993, as the appellant, as noticed above, had not completed 5(five) years of continuo us service at any point of time up to 24.01.2001. 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned Sin gle Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, which requires no interference. 10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.