JUDGMENT

1. The facts of this case are very similar to those in Haradhan Mahato v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2013(3) CLJ(Cal) 520. To highlight this factual identity, we set out paras. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgement:-

'9. The respondent authorities, therefore, denied the benefits of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner for not completing the prescribed usual period of 10 years, which, according to our calculation, comes to less than a period of three months. However, as we have already mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 1 st July, 1968 a seasonal Khalashi and discharged his regular duty in the concerned establishment, the said period should not be altogether ignored and should be taken into consideration to make up the short- fall in computing the service period for the purpose of granting benefit of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner. In spite of serving the organisation since 1968 the benefit of pension should not be denied by the Government of West Bengal on the plea that the post in question was formally sanctioned afterwards and formal office Order was issued at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner altho