WP(C) 2496/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. L. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Gogoi , learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, respondent No. 2. I have also he ard Ms. R. Chakravorty, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing th e respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The 25 (twenty five) petitioners were appointed as L.D. Assistant in the year 1985 vide Annexure-A series orders dated 23.2.05 and 20.8.85. While they w ere continuing in their services they were retrenched from their services by Ann exure-’B’ order dated 26.5.86. Being aggrieved they have filed the writ petition being C.R. No. 939/90. Thus the writ petition was filed after 4 years of termination of service. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 6.2.92 set aside and quashed the impugned order of retrenchment dated 26.5.85 with further direction to appoint the petitioners against the available vacancies within 3 m onths. It was also provided that if there was no vacancies, supernumerary post s hould be created to accommodate the petitioners. After the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.2.92 the petitioners were appointed afresh as LD Assistant vide Annexure-’D’ order dated 25.1.93. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to maintain continuity of the services of the petitioners from their initial appoin tment in 1985. In this connection the petitioners have placed reliance to Rule 6 6 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The respondent No. 1 and 3 have not filed counter affidavit. However, th e respondent No. 2 has filed counter affidavit in which it has been contended th at in absence of any direction from this Court to count the past services of the petitioner same can not be done. As regards provision of Rule 66, it has been c ontended that the power to do so is not with the Finance Department but lies wit h the Administrative Department(General Administrative Department). The impugned order of termination of services of the petitioners was set aside and quashed by judgment and order dated 6.2.92 passed in aforesaid C.R. N o. 939/90. The further direction was to appoint the petitioners within 3 months. The termination order having been set aside and quashed, it is the natural expe ctation of the petitioner that their continuity in service is to be maintained. In absence of any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, th eir stand in the matter is not discernible. Further the Finance Department has c ontended that to condone the track in service, the power and jurisdiction is wit h the General Administrative Department, as per provision of Rule 66 of the Assa m Services (pension) Rules, 1969. This Court while providing for appointment of the petitioners did not de al with the question of continuity of service of the petitioners. However, the impugned order of termination having been set aside and quashed, it has been con tended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a natural consequence, the continuity in service is automatically maintained. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of providing that t he respondent Nos. 1 and 3 may consider the case of the petitioners for continua tion of services from their initial date of appointment at least for the purpose of pensionery benefits. In this connection they may refer to Rule 66 of the afo resaid Rules. In fact, this is the prayer of the writ petitioners also. The respondents may pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 (four) months.