ORDER 1. The case of petitioner No.1 is that he was employed as Malicum Mazdoor on daily wages under Nominal Muster Roll (for short ‘NMR’) and he worked as such with the respondent New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) from 04.11.1969 to 22.03.1973. Thereafter, he was absorbed as a regular employee. From such date, he worked continuously up to 30.06.2004, when he took voluntary retirement while he was working as store keeper under the respondent NMPT. 2. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner No.1 being in regular service with effect from 23.03.1973 to 30.06.2004. The dispute is only with regard to benefit for period of service that petitioner No.1 claims to have worked as Malicum Mazdoor on daily wages. As per the decision of the Government of India given under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, petitioner No.1 would be entitled to the benefit of 50% of his service as a NMR daily wage employee for the purpose of pensionary benefits provided he had worked continuously for such period as a daily wage worker. After retirement, petitioner No.1 had represented to the respondent NMPT for being given such benefit, as according to petitioner No.1, he had worked continuously as daily wage worker from 04.11.1969 to 22.3.1973. In support of his claim, petitioner No.1 had submitted a certificate from the Deputy Controller of Stores, New Mangalore Port Trust, dated 27.09.1991 certifying that petitioner No.1 had worked in the Construction Division as Malicum Mazdoor on NMR basis from 04.11.1969 to 22.03.1973. He had also submitted before the authorities that endorsement to this effect that he had worked for such period as NMR is found in his service book. Copies of the service certificate dated 27.09.1991 and the entry of the same made in the service record, have been filed as Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ to the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 also relies on the communication dated 05.07.2014 of Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing) wherein it is provided that the benefit of 50% service as NMR would be given, provided the head of the administration verifies the same. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that due verification of such service from 1969 to 1973 was made by the Head of the Department on 27.09.1991, which was duly entered in the service record. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that due verification of such service from 1969 to 1973 was made by the Head of the Department on 27.09.1991, which was duly entered in the service record. However, by the impugned order dated 31.05.2006, the benefit of such period of service has been denied to the petitioner merely on the ground that in the record of the Finance Department there is no authentic proof of the same. 3. Challenging the said order dated 31.5.2006, this writ petition has been filed with a further prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant benefit of half of service rendered by the petitioner from 04.11.1969 to 22.03.1973 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 4. Sri B.C.Aniketh, learned counsel for the respondent NMPT has however stated that in the absence of any record being available with regard to such service having been rendered by petitioner No.1 from 1969 to 1973, the benefit of the same cannot be given to him and as such he has justified the passing of the order dated 31.05.2006. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the order dated 31.05.2006 deserves to be quashed for the following reasons: i. The said order has been passed without considering the certificate dated 27.09.1991 issued in favour of petitioner No.1 which categorically states that the petitioner had worked for the said period from 04.11.1969 to 22.03.1973 as Malicum Mazdoor on NMR basis. ii. The entry in the service book of petitioner No.1, a copy of which is filed as AnnexureG, has also not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, and so has the Communication dated 05.07.2004 of Government of India also not been considered. 6. Maintaining of such service record and other records with regard to service of petitioner No.1 either as regular employee or as daily wage worker would be the responsibility of the respondent NMPT and not the petitioner. 6. Maintaining of such service record and other records with regard to service of petitioner No.1 either as regular employee or as daily wage worker would be the responsibility of the respondent NMPT and not the petitioner. The petitioner could have only given a certificate from the officer of the concerned department where he had worked, which he had done in the year 1991, on the basis of which entries were made in his service record in the year 1999 which was more than a decade prior to the issuance of the circular/communication dated 05.07.2004 of the Government of India. These aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority while passing the order dated 31.05.2006. 7. Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, theorderdated31.05.2006isquashed.The respondent NMPT is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the directions made herein above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the filing of the certified copy of this order before the respondent NMPT. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.