WP(C) 6710/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr AK Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr H Rahman, le arned State counsel. Also heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigatio n Department, Govt. of Assam. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the s ubject matter involved, the writ petition is being disposed of at the motion sta ge. The petitioner is the widow of Late Sadhan Dutta who died on 23.11.99 wh ile working as a muster roll worker in the Irrigation Department of the State. T he grievance raised in the writ petition is that notwithstanding long years of s ervice rendered by the husband of the petitioner, family pension has not been fo rthcoming inspite of repeated demands and requests made to the respondents. Bein g left with no alternative, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the in stant writ application. Dr Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submits that i n view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jitendra Kalita & Ors -vs- St ate of Assam and Ors. and other connected cases reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654 wh ich has put an embargo on further regularisations of the muster roll/ work charg ed employees, the regularisation of the petitioner’s husband after his death and retirement cannot be effected. Without such regularisation, the period of servi ce rendered by the late husband of the petitioner cannot be legitimately taken i nto account to determine the period of qualifying service that will be required for grant of pension under the provisions of the Pension Rules in force. This Court in WP(C) Nos. 2186 and 2384 of 2007 had held as follows on an identic al issue in its order dated 21.5.2008 : A perusal of the documents enclosed to the writ petition on which relia nce has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show t hat in similar situations the Irrigation Department and the Finance Department o f the State had worked together for creation of superannuary post for one day i. e. the date prior to the retirement of the concerned incumbent for the purpose o f regularisation of such incumbent in the superannuary post so as to entitle him to pension. The facts stated above make it amply clear that in the past the State ha d been adopting the practice of creation of superannuary post for a single day i .e. the date prior to the retirement of an incumbent for the purpose of regulari sing his service against such post so as to vest in the concerned incumbent a ri ght to receive pension. Such right to receive pension by the concerned incumbent flows from the various orders passed by this Court from time to time in several cases directing exercise of the power of relaxation under proviso to Rule 31 of the Pension Rules which would enable the State to take into account the period of service rendered as a muster roll or worked charged employee, as the case may be, for computation of the required period of qualifying service. A reading of the order of the Full Bench in Jitendra Kalita (supra) woul d seem to indicate that the cases of the present kind were not in contemplation of the Full Bench and, therefore, were not included within the prohibition on fu rther regularisations in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.4.95, as contai ned in paragraph 28(2) of the order dated 17.5.2006 passed by the Full Bench. Th e issue before the Full Bench was with regard to the validity of the Office Memo randum dated 20.4.95. The said Office Memorandum having been held not to be lay ing down a valid policy for regularisation, the Full Bench imposed a prohibition on further regularisations in terms of the said Office Memorandum without, howe ver, disturbing the regularisations already made. On reading the full text of th e judgment of the Full Bench, it cannot be said that while passing the order dat ed 17.5.2006 the Full Bench can be intended to have laying down the law that eve n regularisations after death or retirement for a single day against a superannu ary post for the purpose of pensionary benefits was prohibited. The above being the purport and effect of the Full Bench order dated 17. 5.2006 as can be understood from reading the judgment in question, the Court fin ds no impediment for application of the past practice of creation of superannary posts only for the purpose of regularisation of the worked charged/ muster roll employees who have either retired or have died in that status for the purpose o f grant of pensionary benefits. . In the result, the instant writ petition shall stand disposed in terms o f the observations and clarifications as contained above with further liberty to the department in question to proceed in the matter in accordance with what has been observed above so as to ensure that the petitioner is paid such pensionary benefits to which she would be entitled in law. The respondents are directed to take necessary action as would now be re quired so as to enable the petitioner to receive her dues as expeditiously as po ssible and, in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.