The petitioner herein joined the service on 28.7.62 as Conductor under the Director of State Transport. At the time it was a department of the State of Assam and later on it became a Corporation on and from 1.1.77 and the petitioner continued as an employee of Corporation and opted for Corporation's service and he was released from Govt. service w.e.f. 31.12.36- and absorbed in the Corporation's service w.e.f.1.1.77 and ultimately the petitioner retired from service on 28.10.91. His due as an employee of the Corporation from 1.1.77 to 20.10.91 has been paid by the Corporation. But the benefit payable to the petitioner during the period of service in the Govt. department i.e. Transport Department from 28.7.62 to 31.12.76 has not been paid. Rule 98 Note 2 (i) of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 provides as follows : “(i) A permanent Govt. servant on permanent absorption in a public undertaking, will be eligible for pro rata pension and DCR Gratuity based on the length of his qualifying service under Govt. till the date of permanent absorption. The pension will be calculated on the basis of average emoluments for three years preceding the date of permanent absorption and the DCR Gratuity on the basis of the emoluments immediately before the permanent absorption.” 2. This Rule and Note requires that as soon as the person joins the undertaking it is the duty and obligation of the authority to work out the pension for that particular period under the Govt. and also to fix the DCR and gratuity and that was not done by the authority though the petitioner was absorbed in the Corporation in the year 1977. Thereafter after his retirement when the Corporation wrote to the Govt., the Govt. maintained a stony silence putting this poor employee - a Conductor in difficulty. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor any record has been produced on behalf of State. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of ASTC. 3. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. KH Choudhury, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of ASTC. 3. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. KH Choudhury, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I found that this amount which is due to the petitioner has been wrongfully withheld by the State of Assam in spite of numerous representations and reminders from the Corporation and even today also the State of Assam has not come up with a clean hand to help this poor paid employee. The Supreme Court in the case of (1996) 10 SCC 172 (SR Bhanrale vs. Union of India & others) wherein the .Supreme Court has pointed out that if it is found that the retiral benefit of an employee has been wrongfully withheld, the Court should impose interest. That is what I propose to do. Accordingly, the State of Assam is directed to pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner from 28.7.62 to 31.12.76 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% pa from 29.9.92. The arrear amount along with interest shall be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner may obtain a certified copy of this order and shall produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of this order. This disposes of this writ application.