WP(C) 5099/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. SP Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Patowary, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged th e order dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure-7), by which his prayer for pensionary benefit for the services rendered by him as Work Charged Roller Handyman has been reject ed. It is an admitted position that the petitioner who had joined the services o f the OWD in 1965 was not in service of the respondents from the year 1980. It a ppears that he was transferred to another Division in the year 1980. According t o the petitioner, although he wanted to join in the new Division, he was not all owed to do so. On the other hand it is the stand of the respondents that he had never gone to the new Division and remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has stated that he was not allowed to join in the new Division and thus remained abs ent from duty from 1980. According to the petitioner, he submitted several appea ls/representations, but the same did not yield any result. Finally he submitted representation dated 10.2.2003. However, not a single copy of the purported repr esentations/appeals has been annexed to the writ petition. If the petitoenr was not allowed to join in the new Division as has been allged by him, it was his duty to approach the appropriate authority in the department or to pursue such legal remedy as would be available to him. Ins tead after long 23 years he filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 1008/2003, in wh ich the order dated 24.3.2006 was passed directing the authority to dispose of h is representation. It is pursuant to the said order, the representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of by the impugned order. In the order, referring to the services rendered by the petition er from 1965 and as the petitioner was absent from duty from 1980, it has been o bserved that the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 153 (2) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Rule 153 deals with the contingency and other non-pensionable staff. As per Rule 153 (2) members of the work charged establishment are not ordinarily entitled to any pension or gr atuities. However, members of the work charged establishment, who are not entitl ed to pension on their retirement may be granted gratuity on the scales indicate d therein. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by order dated 1 7.2.2010 expressed the tentative view that the petitioner is not entitled to pen sionary benefits in terms of the aforesaid Rule 153. However, it was also observ ed that the petitioner might be entitled to gratuity. Mr. J. Patowary, learned S tanding Counsel, PWD has produced the letter dated 19.3.2010 addressed to the pe titioner by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nagaon NH Division, by which the petiti oner was directed to submit bank account number to the Division for deposit of g ratuity amount. According to Mr. Patowary, by now he must have submitted bank ac count etc. But, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no action has be en taken towards payment of gratuity to the petitioner. In view of the above, while not interfering with the impugned or der, the respondents are directed to pay the admissible amount of gratuity to th e petitioner to which he might be entitled to facilitating which the petitioner may submit his bank account number. This direction shall be ignored, if in the m eantime the petitioner has been paid gratuity amount. Writ petition is disposed of.