JUDGMENT T. NK Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the State-Respondents. 2. A bare minimal facts, leading to the filing of the present writ petition, is noted. The Petitioners had entered into their services as Contingent Workers (Semi/Skilled Workers) under the Education Department, Govt. of Tripura, on 01.09.1960, 07.09.1960, 09.03.1959 and 01.03.1960 respectively. Initially the fixed pay of the Petitioners as Contingent Workers was Rs. 90/- plus other allowances per month. Subsequently, their fixed pay was enhanced to Rs. 120/- per month. It is the admitted fact of both the parties that the services of the Petitioners as Grade-III employees i.e. Craft Instructors under the Education Directorate, Govt. of Tripura, were regularised w.e.f. 20.05.1974. As regular employees, the Petitioners had already retired on superannuation on different dates in between 31.07.1960 and 28.02.1998 and they have been allowed to enjoy pension and other retirement benefits. The only grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is that while calculating the amount of their pension, the Respondents have not taken into account the period they rendered their services as Contingent Workers. It is also stated in para No. 8 of the writ petition that a Craft Instructor, who was working in the Craft Teachers Training Institute like the Petitioners, namely, Sri Raj Kumar Sutradhar, was allowed pensionary benefits for the period he was Semi/Skilled Worker (Contingent employee). It is the further case of the Petitioners that the benefit extended to the said Raj Kumar Sutradhar shall also be extended to them inasmuch as the writ Petitioners were similarly situated with the said Raj Kumar Sutradhar, who rendered his service like the writ Petitioners and the period of his contingent service has been taken into consideration while calculating the pensionary benefits. 3. It appears that the whole basis for seeking relief in the present writ petition is that the Petitioners are not treated equally with the said Sri Raj Kumar Sutradhar in the matter of calculating the pensionary benefits inasmuch as in the case of Sri Raj Kumar Sutradhar, his service period as Contingent Worker had been taken into consideration for pensionary benefits but such consideration had been denied to the present writ Petitioners. 4. 4. The State-Respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is categorically stated that Sri Raj Kumar Sutradhar, who retired as Craft Instructor has been allowed the pensionary benefit of his length of service w.e.f. 20.05.1974 i.e. the date from which he was appointed to the post of Craft Instructor on regular scale of pay and the Respondents had categorically denied the case of the writ Petitioners that Sri Raj Kumar Sutradhar had been allowed the pensionary benefits for the period he was Semi/Skilled Worker on contingent basis. It is fairly well settled that the pensionary benefits of an employee is not the bounty of the employer. Pensionary benefit is the one under the Statute or Rules. In the present case, this Court put a pointed question to Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as to whether there is any Rule or Memorandum under which the period of contingent service shall be counted for pensionary benefit but Mr. Majumder, did not give any positive reply. His only submission is that the period of contingent service shall be taken as the duty. But, as stated above, the only point to be decided in this case is whether the period of contingent service can be taken into consideration for pensionary benefits and if so, under what Rules. 5. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and also on perusal of the records, it appears that there is no Rule or Regulation or Memorandum under which the period of contingent service shall be taken into consideration while calculating the pensionary benefits. For the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that pension is a benefit available to the employee under the Rules and in absence of Rules employee can't seek the benefit of pension. 6. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no material have been make out for interfering with the impugned communication dated 31.10.1997, issued by the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, that the past services of Semi-Skilled Worker under the C.T.T.I. as Contingent Worker is not within the purview of the conditions of the Finance Department's Memo No. F.8(3)-FIN(G)/78, dated 19.07.1982 and as such the past service of Semi-Skilled Worker (contingent) cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed