Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ respondent no. 2 – appellant against the order dated 12.11.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 15761 of 2013.

3. The case of the writ-petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as a Daily Wage (Literate) Mazdoor in the office of the appellant on 18.4.1985. Having passed the prescribed test and having cleared the interview, he was appointed as Ex-Cadre Assistant on 18.3.2004 and retired on 31.10.2010. Having worked continuously for more than 25 years in office, he filed representations before the appellant, however, finally by the impugned letter dated 10.7.2012 the writ petitioner was held to be not entitled for grant of pension on account of the fact that the period of his service was less than 10 years. The writ petitioner as a result challenged the same by filing a writ application (C.W.J.C. no. 15761 of 2013) praying therein that the letter dated 10.7.2012 debarring the writ petitioner from pension on account of his regular service being less than 10 years be quashed and the pension amount be determined as he had retired on 31.10.2010.

4