WP(C) 6248/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mrs S Das Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr J Handique , GA appearing for the State respondents No.1,2 & 3. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the non-pay ment of his retirement benefits such as gratuity, pension, leave encashment etc due to him. He was initially appointed as Lower Division Assistant-Cum-Typist on 09.03.1966 in the Office of Tihu Barama Anchalik Panchayat No.49, Madhapur. He was subsequently appointed as Gaon Panchayat Secretary in the pay scale of Lower Division Assistant. By the Notification dated 16.11.1991, the Govt. of Assam pr ovincialised the services of Panchyat employees of Gaon Panchyat and Mohkuma Pan chyat. Following provincialisation of the Panchyat employees, in accordance with the Assam Panchyat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999, according to the pe titioner, such employees became entitled to pensionary benefits. These resulted in the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 22.05.2000 by the Panchyat Rural Development (A) Department, which extended all financial benefits including reti rement benefits etc. to all such employees. The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2003 after rendering services for 23 years in Tihu Barama Anchalik Panc hayat No.49, Madhapur and under the Nalbari Zilla Parishad. However, the respond ents refused to pay him the pensionary benefits made available under the Office Memorandum dated 22.05.2000. The case of the State respondents is that the petit ioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits by contending that the petition er was deemed to have been appointed as Panchyat Secretary only with effect from 01.10.1991 when the Panchyat Act came into force. In other words, the contentio n of the State respondents is that the petitioner cannot claim his date of appoi ntment with effect from the date of his initial appointment only with effect fro m 01.10.1991 when the Act came into force and as such the previous service rende red by him prior to 01.10.1991 cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits: he cannot, therefore, be eligible for the pensionary benefits claimed by him. 3. Mrs S Das Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws m y attention to the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2010 passed by the Division Benc h of this Court in Writ Appeal No.145/2009 & Ors (1.State of Assam & Ors -Vrs- S ri Sayad Md Fazlay Rabbi & 2 Ors) and submits that the instant case is squarely covered by this decision. The learned counsel for the State respondents fairly c oncedes that the case at hand is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Divisi on Bench. In that case, the Division Bench observed as follows: 09.The pleadings on record as well as the rival submissions made have been duly considered by us. The Preamble of the Act discloses that the legislation is to provide for provincialisation of services of the employees working in the panch ayats at all level established under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and has been enacted for the improvement, better management and control of the panchayat inst itutions of the State. This Act in terms of section 1(3) has been brought into force on and from 01.10.1991. To resolve the controversy in hand, it would be a pt to quote the definition of appointed day , date of appointment , employe and ’provincialisation.’ (a) appointed day means the date on which this Act came into force; (b) date of appointment means in relation to any employee, the date on which h e joined the service of panchayat; (c) employees means a person in the employment of Panchayats against a regular ly sanctioned post; (d) provincialisation means taking over of the liabilities for payment of sala ries including dearness allowances, medical relief and such other allowances as admissible to the Government servant of similar category and gratuity, pension, leave enchashment etc., as admissible under the existing rules to the Government servants serving under the Government of Assam; Section 3 provides that subject to the provision of Article 30 of the Constituti on of India, all employees under the panchayat and the State Government shall be deemed to have been provincialized on and from the appointed date on the terms and conditions, as enumerated therein. Section 4 assures to such employees on superannuation, pension or gratuity or both in accordance with the pension rules applicable to the Government servant of equivalent rank as provided therein. T he services of all such employees are to be integrated in the appropriate cadres in accordance with the Rules, as may be prescribed by the State Government and that their interse seniority would be determined on the basis of the principles laid down therein. We are told that after the Act had been brought into effect, in terms thereof, 4656 number of panchayat employees were provincialized in the year 1991 in various grades/cadres of State service following their adjustment in the existing as well as subsequently created sanctioned posts. Whereas, it i s obvious from section 4(2) of the Act that eligibility of the provincialized em ployees thereunder for pension or gratuity or both would have to be adjudged in accordance with the pension Rules applicable to the Government employees of equi valent rank, according to us the key to the poser lies in the definition date o f appointment , which indicates unerringly to be one vis-a-vis such employees., the date on he/she had joined the service of the panchayat. In contradistinctio n appointed date has been defined to be one on which the Act had come into for ce. It is, therefore, patently clear that the legislature had in its wisdom int ended to maintain a distinction between ’appointed date’ and ’the date of appoin tment’ of the employees intended to be provincialized under the Act. On a scrut iny of the provisions of the enactment, it is demonstrable that whereas the appo inted date was provided to indicate a cut off date for the provincialisation of the services of the existing employees, the date of appointment was comprehended for the purpose of continuity in service of such employees on and from the date s of their initial appointment to determine their entitlements under the legisla tion including pension and other retirement benefits. The interpretation presen tly sought to be provided by the State when tested on the touchstone of this sch eme, in our estimate has the potential of defeating the very purpose of the Act. Whereas, on one hand it would be that the legislation is with the statutory ob jective of provincialisation of the services of the employees to treat them as S tate Government employees, on the other, the services rendered by them prior to the enforcement of the Act would be then treated to be non-existent. As the pri me consideration of the provincialisation appears to be to protect the past serv ices of the existing employees as on 01.10.1991 in different levels of the panch ayat institutions of the State, the interpretation of the Act, which may lead to denial of all consequential benefits or rendering them wholly illusory would be illogical and absurd. Having regard to the fundamental principles of interpret ation of statutes, the legislation involved, being apparently one to benefit the serving employees in the panchayat institutions and the legislature having cons ciously maintained a distinction between the ’appointed date’ and the ’date of a ppointment’, as noticed hereinabove, the construction sought to be adopted by th e State Government, in our view runs apparently counter to the letter and spirit thereof. The proposition of the State Governments, if accepted, would have the effect of synonymising appointed date with date of appointment as defined n the Act, a step clearly not intended by the legislature. Had it so desired, i t could have clearly mentioned the date of appointment of the concerned employee s, also to be appointed day. The difference in the salient features of these tw o expressions having been deliberately maintained, any contrary interpretation, in our opinion would amount to doing violence to the language and texture of the legislation. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the benefit of the provisions of the Act including those for pension and other retirement dues wou ld be available to the provincialized employees in service on and after 01.10.19 91 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date(s) of thei r initial appointments. 10.Needless to say, the provisions of the pension rules applicable to the State Government would apply subject to the above. Vis-a-vis, the provincialized empl oyees who have expired on and after 01.10.1991, the benefits in terms of the Act as well as contemplated by the pension rules would be available to those eligib le thereunder . 4. On reading and re-reading the aforesaid paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the instant case is undoubtedly covered by that decision. In the re sult, the writ petition succeeds. The State respondents are accordingly directed to determine all the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner in accordanc e with law and release the same to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this Judgment & Order. No costs.