WP(C) 697/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Saikia, learne d Standing Counsel, P.W.D., Govt. of Assam and Mr. C. Boruah, learned counsel ap pearing for the Accountant General, Assam. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that her husband had died in ha rness as Work Charged Section Assistant on 21.07.2006, he having joined the serv ice of the P.W. Department (hereinafter for short referred to as the Department) in the aforementioned capacity on 19.07.1993. As she being his widow approache d the concerned authorities of the Department for family pension and other relat ed retiral benefits, she was released only the General Provident Fund. Her claim for other pensionary benefits having remained unheeded inspite of her repeated representations and appeals, she has turned to this Court for redress. The respondents, in their counter, in substance, have urged that as the services of the petitioner’s husband had not been regularized before his demise, the cla im for pensionary benefits as made is untenable in law. Relevant provisions of the Assam Financial Rules have referred to in endorsement of this stand. The re spondents, however do not deny that the petitioner’s husband had served the Depa rtment as Work Charged Section Assistant from 19.07.1993 to 21.07.2006 and that an amount of Rs.68,457.00 has meanwhile been released to her(petitioner) by way of GPF. Mr. Biswas, while reiterating the pleaded facts recited by the petitioner has re lied upon a series of decisions of this Court on the identical issue, more parti cularly in WP(C) Nos.2186/2007 & 2384/2007 as well as WP(C) No.3906/2008. Mr. Saikia, submits that the only impediment in the way of granting pensionary b enefits to the petitioner is the non regularization of the services of her husba nd. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a scrutiny of the facts as obtained in the instant case, this Court is of the view that the controversy can be resolved as indicated in the orders dated 21.05.2008 and 26.09.2008 rende red in WP(C) Nos.2186/2007 & 2384/2007 as well as WP(C) No.3906/2008- A Full Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kalita and Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors and a host of petitions accompanying it, (2006) 1 GLT 654, has imposed a prohib ition on further regularization of Muster Roll/Work charged employees on the bas is of the Office Memorandum dated 20.4.1995 referred to therein. The Public Wor ks and Finance Department of the State in view of the above had in WP(C) Nos.218 6 and 2384/2007 involving a claim for regularization of the Work charged employe es of the Public Works Department raised the plea of the said bar. This Court b y order dated 21.5.2008 clarified that the determination in Jitendra Kalita and Ors (Supra) was not intended to post any impediment for pursing the past practic e of creation of supernumerary posts for the purpose of regularization of the wo rked charged/muster roll employees who had either retired or died in that status for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. It was further ruled that the said determination also does not have the effect of disturbing the regularizati on already made. The above departments were thereby granted liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the said observations so as to ensure that the petitioners therein were paid such pensionary benefits to which they would be fo und entitled in law. Having regard to the assertions of the petitioner, the decision of the Full Benc h would thus not bar a consideration of the period of the service of her husband as work charged Section Assistant for the pensionary benefits in terms of the d ecision of this Court in Kabiram Ranbogshi Vs. The State of Assam and Ors (1997) 1 GLT 589. In the above view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of with a dire ction to the State respondents, more particularly the Chief Engineer PWD (Roads) , Guwahati to verify the service particulars of the petitioner’s husband and if the same are found to be correct, the authority concerned would include the said period for the purpose of computation of the pensionary benefits payable to her following the past practice pertaining to the regularization of work charge/ mu ster roll employee and after making the necessary declaration as per Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969, release the dues subject to the other relevant executive instructions and guidelines. The process as indicated should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the cer tified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed in these terms. No cos ts.