JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel represents Respondent No.4, whereas Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel represents Respondent No.5. 2. The total qualifying period of service of the petitioner is the bone of contention in the present proceeding. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Night Chowkidar in the year 1982 on Muster Roll basis in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Goalpara Division (Irrigation), Goalpara. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation) during re-organization of the Dudhnoi Division. Petitioner continued as such and by office order dated 06.10.2005, his service came to be regularized. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2013. 3. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to all retirement benefits and monthly pension w.e.f. 30.06.2013. Although he has submitted the pension papers, however, a letter came to be issued on 06.05.2015 from the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam, negating his claim. Ground assigned is that since the petitioner was engaged as Muster Roll Worker on 22.09.1992 and had retired on supernuation on 30.06.2013, his total qualifying service, after deduction of the initial 6 year service as a Muster Roll Worker, is only 14 years 9 months and 9 days. In the said letter dated 06.05.2015, it is also indicated that as per the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969, a temporary Government servant retiring with less than 20 years of service is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, save and except, the terminal gratuity at the admissible rate and as per required procedure. The clarification made by the Finance Department was also taken note of holding that pension is not admissible to a retired Muster Roll employee with less than 20 years of service, unless, confirmation of service is approved by the Finance Department. Challenging the views so expressed by the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam, the present writ petition was instituted. 4. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the period of service, computed from the year 1982 and even after deduction of the initial 6 years of the Muster Roll period, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to all pensionary benefits as well as pension with effect from the date of superannuation i.e 30.06.2013. According to Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the period of service, computed from the year 1982 and even after deduction of the initial 6 years of the Muster Roll period, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to all pensionary benefits as well as pension with effect from the date of superannuation i.e 30.06.2013. According to Mr. Das, the respondents concerned while arriving at the impugned decision, did not reconcile with the service records of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed more than 20 years as qualifying service even after the deduction of the initial 6 years period as Muster Roll Worker. As such, with or without confirmation, the petitioner cannot be denied pensionary benefits as well as monthly pension w.e.f. 30.06.2013. 5. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the Irrigation Department submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was engaged as Muster Roll Worker only on 22.09.1992 and having retired on superannuation on 30.06.2013, his qualifying service falls short of the required number of years to make him entitled to pensionary benefits and pension. 6. As the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker was deemed to be of utmost significance for deciding this writ petition, Dr. Ahmed was asked to produce the Incumbency Register in original so as to ascertain his date of engagement. Before looking at the Incumbency Register so produced, noticed is had to the letter dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure-B) issued under the hand of the Executive Engineer, Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation). What would be relevant is the mention made in the said letter dated 26.08.2014 that the petitioner had been transferred to the Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation) from Goalpara Division (Irrigation) at a time when re-organisation of the Dudhnoi Division had taken place. On the very admission of the State respondent, the petitioner’s service at Dudhnoi Division was by way of transfer from Goalpara Division. 7. Turning to the Incumbency Register of the Work Charged/Muster Roll and Fixed Pay Employees maintained by the Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation), the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No.78, his date of engagement is shown as 22.09.1992. However, there is apparent over-writing of the numeral ‘9’ relating to the year of his engagement. It clearly shows that numeral ‘8’ has been overwritten and replaced by the numeral ‘9’. No.78, his date of engagement is shown as 22.09.1992. However, there is apparent over-writing of the numeral ‘9’ relating to the year of his engagement. It clearly shows that numeral ‘8’ has been overwritten and replaced by the numeral ‘9’. While making the said alteration, there are also no initials of any official authority. What can be readily inferred is that although the petitioner started discharging duties at Dudhnoi Division (Irrigation) from 22.09.1992, however, the fact remains that he had been transferred to the Dudhnoi Division from Goalpara Division. The alteration made in the Incumbency Register with regard to the year of engagement raises apprehension on the action of the State respondents in holding that the petitioner had only put in 14 years 9 months and 9 days qualifying service after deduction of the initial 6 years as Muster Roll Worker. 8. In the light of the materials on record, the actual qualifying service put in by the petitioner, after deduction of the initial 6 years Muster Roll period, needs to be re-visited by the State respondents. Denial of retiral benefits and the monthly pension cannot be decided as a matter of course, inasmuch as, entitlement to legitimate dues is a social and economic justice inhering upon the persons deserving. The engagement of the petitioner from 22.09.1992 cannot be taken at its face value as by the very admission of the State respondents he had come to the Dudhnoi Division by way of transfer from the Goalpara Division. 9. Having regard to the above, it now becomes incumbent upon the State respondents, particularly the Irrigation Department to take such steps for ascertaining the actual date of engagement of the petitioner commencing from his employment at the erstwhile Goalpara Division (Irrigation). The State respondents cannot be allowed to take a defence that records pertaining to the erstwhile Goalpara Division (Irrigation) showing the date of engagement of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker in the said Division are not traceable. 10. Let the required exercise be completed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today. The result of the enquiry shall be communicated to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam immediately thereafter. 10. Let the required exercise be completed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today. The result of the enquiry shall be communicated to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam immediately thereafter. The letter dated 6.05.2015 issued from the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam shall be subject to a fresh decision that would be required to be taken on the basis of the Report of the enquiry process, as required to be done by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in terms of this order. 11. Writ petition stands accordingly disposed of.