Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyaa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner). Also heard Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 16.6.2006 in WP (C) No. 3053/04, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner does not qualify for pension under the second condition of Rule 31 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as he was not holding any post on substantive and permanent basis. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge by referring to the Proviso to Rule 31 which enables the Governor to relax the rigor of the rule in individual cases, remitted the claim of the writ petitioner who had rendered 14-1/2 years of service under the Assam Official Language (Translation of Central Laws) Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) as the functioning of the Commission was found to be continuing and is expected in continue in foreseeable feature.

3. The appellant was appointed as a Language Officer under the Commission constituted by Notification dated 21.7.1986, for a period of 3 years or till the continuation of the Commission, whichever is earlier by appointment order dated 8.5.1987. Subsequently by promotion order dated 1.9.1990 she was appointed on promotion as Sr. Language Officer for a period upto 21.7.1991 or till the Commission continues, whichever is earlier. Continuance of appellant's service was ensured by passing of retention order from time to time, for the post held by the appellant and other employees in the Commission. The appellant served in the Commission in this fashion till 1.9.2001 when she was superannuated from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Thereafter she submitted her pension papers for granting of pension. Since no positive response was received, the appellant being aggrieved filed WP (C) 3053/04 seeking a direction from the Court for grant of pensionary benefit by contending that 14-1/2 years service rendered with the Commission should be considered as eligible for grant of pension. The said claim was opposed by the respondents by contending that the appellant was appointed on contract basis and pension for such contract service are inadmissible under the provision of Rule 23 (f) of the Rules.

4. Appearing for the appellant, it is argued by Mr. Bhattacharyaa that the Commission which was set up on 16.2.1987 for the purpose of translation of Central Laws to Assamese Language, have been functioning for last 22 years and the Commission's works being perennial, it is unlikely that the activities of the Commission would be wound up in near future and it can be construed to be a permanent establishment.

4.1. It is also pointed out that the appellant was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of 3 years, when she was promoted, the words "on contract service" was not incorporated in the promotion order dated 1.9.1990.

4.2. It is also contended that the appellant like any other Government servant received the benefit of Increments, Crossing of EBs, Revised Pay Scale, Medical Reimbursement, Earned Leave, Medical Leave etc. and her service had all the embellishment of a regular Govt. service and the same cannot be considered to be a contract service with the Government.

4.3. It is also pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharyaa that the Commission functions under the State Legislative Department and the posts under the Commission including the post of Sr. Language Officer held by the appellant have been incorporated amongst the posts under the said department in the Revision of Pay Rules and therefore the service in such posts has to be construed as substantive and permanent in nature.

4.4. The provisions of the Pension Rules have also been referred to by the learned senior counsel to contend that the service rendered by the appellant is on substantive basis against a permanent post and the dis