JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. L Mohan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State authorities are represented by Ms. D Barman, the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. B Gogoi, as the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department represents the respondent No.3. The Assam Government Construction Corporation Limited (AGCCL) is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. S K Goswami. 2. The petitioner served as a driver in the AGCCL and was superannuated from service on 30.6.2005 at the age of 58 years, under the retirement notice dated 6.5.2005 issued by the Managing Director (M.D) of the AGCCL. The petitioner claims continuation in service until 59 years and thus additional salary and allowances for 12 month w.e.f. 01.07.2005 – 30.06.2006 is claimed by him. In the additional rejoinder affidavit filed on 18.5.2011, the petitioner contends that quantification of payable sum by the AGCCL on retirement of the employee, towards Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Arrear Salary and Employees Contribution to Provident Fund (ECPF) were not calculated properly and he is entitled to receive more money under these Heads. 3. The AGCCL is an Assam Government Corporation which was doing poorly and was unable to disburse the salary of its staff. It was then decided on 10.6.2004 to implement the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the employees, under the Notification dated 10.6.2004 (Annexure-1). Although the petitioner claims to have applied for VRS on 21.6.2004, the AGCCL in their counter affidavit have averred that no such application was ever received from the petitioner for VRS. Eventually, on attaining the superannuation age (58 years), the driver was allowed to retire on 30.6.2005. 4. On his retirement, the superannuation dues payable to the petitioner was quantified at Rs.7,47,481/- out of which Rs.8074/- + Rs.42,924/-, were deducted towards Professional Tax and House Rent & Electricity. Thus balance Rs.6,96,483/- was decided as the payable dues of the petitioner and those were disbursed in 9 installments from 12.1.2006 until 23.4.2008, as can be seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the AGCCL on 13.11.2009. 5. The claim for continuation in service until 59 years is based on the OM dated 25.1.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel of the Assam Government, whereby the retirement age of the State Government employees were enhanced to 59 years from 58 years. 5. The claim for continuation in service until 59 years is based on the OM dated 25.1.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel of the Assam Government, whereby the retirement age of the State Government employees were enhanced to 59 years from 58 years. The higher claim under the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) benefit is based upon the OM dated 5.9.2001 of the Pension & Public Grievances Department of the Assam Government. 6. On reading of the OM dated 25.1.2005 and 5.9.2001 of the Assam Government it is apparent that they are applicable only to the State Government employees and the Government Corporation staff cannot claim any extra service benefits, on account of these two notifications. The AGCCL is a Government Corporation but their employees are not Government servants. Therefore, the employees of the AGCCL can have no legal right to claim benefits at par with that of the Government employees. On this issue, authoritative pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court in Officers & Supervisors of I.D.PO.L. vs. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490 . Therefore, the petitioner’s claim to continue in service up to 59 years and for higher DCRG benefits applicable for Government employees, is not found to be justified as the claimant is not a Government employee but was in service with a Government Corporation. Of course, the AGCCL is at liberty to independently extend such service benefits to their employees but that is not the case here. 7.1 In the additional affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner on 18.5.2011, he claims higher amount towards Gratuity, Leave Encashment, E.C.P.F. etc. He also challenges the deduction of Professional Tax and House Rent & Electricity dues from the dues paid out by the AGCCL. According to the quantification made by the AGCCL, the following amount under different heads were disbursed to the retired employee :- I. Gratuity Rs.1,72,211/- II. Leave Encashment Rs. 98,108/- III. Pending Salary Rs.3,20,434/- IV. Full and final payment of E.C.P.F Rs.1,56,728/- 7.2. The payable sum under the above Heads were quantified in accordance with the norms applicable in the AGCCL but the petitioner while claiming a larger sum has not explained how he is entitled to any higher amount under these heads. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for additional amount under the aforesaid heads are held to be untenable and the same are rejected. 8. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for additional amount under the aforesaid heads are held to be untenable and the same are rejected. 8. In so far as deduction of Professional Tax, such deduction is required to be made under the Gazette Notification of May 6, 2005 and therefore, the deduction of this sum by the AGCCL from the payable dues of the petitioner is found to be justified. The next aspect to be considered is whether deduction of Rs.42,924/- towards House Rent & Electricity from the retirement dues of the employee was correct or not. The legality of the deduction is questioned by the petitioner by claiming that he was staying in a self-constructed thatched house and was not occupying any official quarter. But this is disputed by the learned Counsel for the AGCCL, who contends that deduction of House Rent & Electricity was made only because the petitioner was provided with official accommodation. 9. Whether the petitioner was residing in an official quarter or was staying in his own house is a matter of factual verification and therefore this aspect is directed to be examined by the M.D. of the AGCCL. If the petitioner was not provided any official accommodation and was residing in his own house as claimed by him, the deduction towards House Rent & Electricity may not be justified. Therefore while rejecting the petitioner’s claim for continuation in service until the age of 59 years and also declaring that the quantification of the retirement dues under different heads by the AGCCL was just and proper, only on the deduction of House Rent & Electricity, a verification exercise is ordered to be done by the M.D., AGCCL. 10. To facilitate the above exercise, on deduction made towards of House Rent & Electricity, the petitioner will furnish a copy of this order along with his representation to the M.D., AGCCL within 15 days from today. The issue should then be examined by the M.D. by referring to the contemporaneous records of the AGCCL and a decision should be taken within 6 weeks thereafter. If the employee was not provided official accommodation, the employer will arrange disbursal of the sum decided under the House Rent & Electricity head to the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above order the case stands allowed without any order on cost.