WP(C) 4264/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Patowary, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Works Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5. Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondent No.2. The petitioner is the wife of Late Tilak Rabi Das who served as a Muster Roll worker under Kokrajhar Roads Division of the PWD. She is before this Court seeking a direction for taking into account the ad hoc service rendered by her husband as a Muster Roll worker for the purpose of pension benefits, as has been granted to similarly situated Government employees. The benefit of the Office M emorandum dated 4.12.1989 (Annexure-E) issued by the Pension & Public Grievances Department for counting of such ad-hoc service for the purpose of receiving pen sion benefits, is invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decision of this Court in the case of Kabiram Rajbangshi vs. State o f Assam reported in 1997 (1) GLT 589 and similar such decision appended as anne xures in the writ petition are cited by Mr. Das to submit that this case be disp osed of in light of those decision(s) of the Court. Mr. J Patowary, learned Standing Counsel submits that following the Offi ce Memorandum dated 14.12.1989 and the Court’s earlier decision, the ad-hoc serv ice of large number of Muster Roll workers were taken into account for granting pensionary benefits and similar consideration might have been made for the servi ce rendered by the petitioner’s husband as well. It appears that the petitioner’s husband entered service as a Muster Rol l worker on 1.7.1963 and his said service was regularized on 1.3.1984. Subsequen tly his service was confirmed on 1.3.1989 and he reached the age of superannuati on on 30.6.1990. Thus although Late Tilak Rabi Das rendered 26 years 11 months a nd 29 days of service as a Muster Roll worker, because of delayed regularization , only 6 years 3 months were considered as regular service of the deceased emplo yee. The employee expired on 11.2.1991 without receiving the benefit of pension. Considering the above service record of the petitioner’s husband and the decision rendered by this Court in Kabiram Rajbangshi (supra) and other similar cases, I am inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents t o make the requisite declaration under Rule 31 of the Pensions Rules to enable t he petitioner to receive the pension benefits on account of her husband’s servic e as a Muster Roll worker. If such benefit has already been granted by the department, the responde nts are not required to make any further exercise in this regard. With the aforesaid direction this case stands allowed accordingly.