Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1089 of 2015 andWP(C) No.6668 of 2013, Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.250 of2016, Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.4127 of 2016, Mr. P.P.Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6968 of 2016, Mr. N. Haque, learnedcounsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.7015 of 2016 and Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counselfor the petitioner in WP(C) No.3024 of 2017 and WP(C) No.5017 of 2017 are present. Alsoheard Mr. D. Doley, learned Standing Counsel for the PWD and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned StandingCounsel for Pension. Mr. G. Baishya, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General,Assam, and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for Finance Department, are present.

2. All these matters being connected wherein a similar grievance is expressed and therefore, the same are taken altogether for disposal.

3. At the outset it would be necessary to state the facts of the individual cases in brief. The petitioner in WP(C) No.1089 of 2015 was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 01.10.1992. Thereafter, her service was regularized with effect from 22.07.2005 and in the order of regularization list, the name of the petitioner’s appeared at serial No.107. The petitioner retired from her service on 31.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation and her pension papers were forwarded to the Government of Assam vide letter dated 17.07.2014 and thereafter, to the Accountant General, Assam. However, vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2014, issued by the Office of Accountant General the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. In WP(C) No.5017 of 2017, there are 4 petitioners. All petitioners were initially appointed as Muster Roll Workers and were subsequently regularized vide notification dated 22.07.2005. On the retirement of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 had completed 19 years 2 months of service with regularized service of 3 years 8 months. Likewise, the petitioner No.2 had completed 23 years 7 months of total service with regularized service of 6 years 10 months. The petitioner No.3 had total length of service of 24 years 7 months with regualrised service of 9 years 4 months and lastly, the petitioner No.4 had total length of service of 22 years 6 months with regularized service of 7 years 5 months.

5. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6968 of 2016 was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 07.01.1990 and was similarly regularized with effect from 22.07.2005. On his retirement on 30.11.2014, his pension papers were forwarded which were, however, rejected.

6. In WP(C) No.7015 of 2016 there is one petitioner who was appointed as Muster Roll Worker in the Department of Sericulture on 01.08.1990. His service was regularized vide order dated 14.10.2005 and upon retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012, his pension proposal was submitted to the Government. However, till date there is no response. The petitioner in this case has served for a period of 21 years 5 months and his regularised service is for a period of 6 years 3 months.

7. The petitioner in WP(C) No.4127 of 2016 is the wife of the deceased employee who was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 03.10.1989. The service of her husband was regularized with effect from 22.07.2005 and on 02.05.2012, his service was also confirmed. The total length of service rendered by the petitioner’s husband in this case was 22 years 3 months and regularised service was 7 years 6 months. It is case of the petitioner that till date, no pension has been received by her.

8. In WP(C) No.250 of 2016, the petitioner was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 21.05.1986 and his service was regularized vide order dated 19.10.2007. The petitioner retired on 30.11.2009 and thus, the petitioner served a total length of 23 years 6 months with regularised period of 17 years 6 months.

9. The case projected by the petitioners is that the rejection of pension by t