Tapen Sen, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed that he should be given the full voluntary retirement dues by calculating the same with effect from his original and initial date of appointment, i.e., 9.4.1973 and not from 1.1.1989, i.e., the date on which he was absorbed.

2. The petitioner has further prayed for similar calculation on the leave encashment amount taking 9.4.1973 as the date and also to pay the remaining amount enuring to his benefit under the V.R.S. Scheme by taking into account the actual length of service.

3. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed on 9.4.1973 as a Wagon Loader/Stone Cutter in the Govindpur Colliery and since then he continued to work without any break. The petitioner relies upon the service excerpt vide Annexure 1 and submits that as per the said document the respondents themselves, have shown his date of appointment to be 9.4.1973.

4. The petitioner has further stated that even in the From B Register the year of the petitioners appointment has been mentioned as 1973 and in support of the aforementioned contention the petitioner has referred to Annexure A of the counter affidavit which is the relevant portion of the said register brought on record by the respondents themselves. The petitioner submits that in this document it has been mentioned 19.11.1973 which means that this was opened on that date but, the fact remains that he was actually appointed on 9.4.1973 as is apparent from Annexure-1 appended to the writ application as also the calculation sheet brought on record by the respondents themselves vide Annexure C which says that the date of appointment is 9.4.1973.

5. On the other hand, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the petitioner was regularized on the permanent roll of Govindpur Colliery with effect from 1.1.1989 and therefore, the respondent have considered the said date, i.e., 1.1.1989 as the date for purposes of calculation of all benefits under the V.R.S. Scheme and accordingly have paid all amounts on the basis of such date. They have further stated at paragraph 11 that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Casual Wagon Loader on 9.4.1973 but, he never worked for 240 days in any calendar year between 9.4.1973 and 1985, and only such persons who complete five years of continuous service are regularized on permanent roll of the Company. Accordingly, since he was made regular on 1.1.1989, therefore the respondents have taken the period of length of service from 1.1.1989 till 30.3.2000 (i.e., the date when the petitioners application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Controlling Authority vide Annexure-2).

6. The statements made by the respondents to the effect that he never worked for 240 days in any calendar year between 9.4.1973 and 1985 cannot be believed in the face of Annexure C to the counter affidavit read with Annexure A thereto as also Annexure-1 to the writ application. While Annexures A and C have been brought on record by the respondents themselves, and which show the date of appointment as per Form B Register as 9.4.1973, this Court also comes to a conclusion taking into consideration the service excerpt too (Annexure-1) that the date of appointment of the petitioner is 9.4.1973.

7. Thus, if the petitioner was made permanent on 1.1.1989, as has been admitted by the respondents, in various places of the counter affidavit as also in Annexure C thereto, then the only logical conclusion is that the petitioner during this period, i.e., between the period of 9.4.1973 to 1.1.1989 continued to be in status of a casual employee.

8. Thus, the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the aforementioned period between 9.4.1973 to 1.1.1989 (i.e., almost 15 years and 8 months) which the petitioner worked in the status of a Casual Wagon Loader should be allowed to go totally wasted or as to whether this period should be ordered to ensure to his benefits for all practical purposes?

9. The l