Ujjal Bhuyan, J

1. Heard Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to settle the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner and to release the same without any delay.

2. Facts of the case may be briefly noted.

3. Petitioner was working as Stenographer Grade III in the establishment of the Advocate General, Mizoram in the Gauhati High Court in the year 1989, drawing basic pay of Rs. 1,520/- per month. An advertisement was issued by the Gauhati High Court, Guwahati for recruitment to the post of Stenographer Grade II. Petitioner applied for the said post and was selected. On being released by the Government of Mizoram, petitioner joined the post of Stenographer Grade II in the Gauhati High Court, Guwahati on 13.6.1989. At the time of joining the post of Stenographer Grade II, the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month under FR 22 granting him pay protection in the pay scale (pre-revised) of Rs. 670-1500/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Stenographer Grade-I w.e.f. 13.11.1990.

4. A few Grade I Stenographers working in this Court filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 4538/1996, seeking pay parity with the pay of the petitioner and others granted by way of pay protection. By the judgment and order dated 25.11.1998, a Single Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. In the said proceeding, pay fixation of the petitioner and others were held to have been done lawfully. The said decision has since been reported in 1999 (1) GLT 307: Nandeswar Kalita & other Vs. Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court & other. The matter was carried in appeal in WANo.84/1999. A Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 22.7.2002 dismissed the appeal by upholding the decision of the Single Bench. The Division Bench judgment is reported in 2002 (2) GLT 691.

5. Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 1.2.2010. When the service book of the petitioner and other papers were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam (respondent No. 4), the Senior Accounts Officer (respondent No. 5) initially raised objection to the pay protection granted to the petitioner on his joining service in the High Court on 13.6.1999, as approval of the Finance Department, Govt. of Assam was not obtained. Respondent No. 5 wrote to the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court vide letter dated 2.9.2010 stating that no pay protection is admissible to the petitioner for his past service as he came from other Government. Matter was requested to be taken up with the Finance Department, Government of Assam for a final decision.

6. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court vide his letter dated 22.2.2011 wrote to the Judicial Department, Govt. of Assam to take up the matter with the Finance Department to accord ex post facto approval to the protection/fixation of pay of the petitioner.

7. Judicial Department wrote back to the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court vide letter dated 28.3.2012 stating that the Finance (Esst. A) Department had accorded ex post facto concurrence to the fixation of pay of the petitioner in the post of Stenographer Grade II at Rs. 1500/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 670-1500/- under FR 22 on protection of his last pay drawn in earlier post.

8. Despite the said ex post facto approval given by the Finance Department, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not release the pension of the petitioner but continued to raise objection on the issue of pay protection granted to the petition