JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State Government through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar wherein the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1448 of 2010 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the authorities have been directed to disburse the pension and other retiral dues as admissible to the applicant/opposite party no.1 from the date of his retirement on 30.11.2003 till the date of his death on 22.3.2011 and thereafter, family pension be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of the applicant/opposite party no.1 from the date of his death. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant/opposite party no.1, who was earlier working as a Khalasi in Prachi Division, Bhubaneswar, brought over to work charged establishment on 1.11.1973. He was provisionally brought over to regular (wages) establishment as Khalasi against vacancies arising due to retirement and death of the regular incumbents, had filed an Original Application with a prayer to quash the orders dated 29.3.2006 and 3.9.2010 whereby and where under the representation of the applicant/opposite party no.1 was rejected by the authorities denying the disbursement of pension and other retiral benefits in his favour. According to the applicant/opposite party no.1, he was engaged as a Khalasi in the work charged establishment and joined on 17.4.1975. The applicant/opposite party no.1 was retrenched from his service on 26.8.1976 and again reengaged on 14.12.1976, thereafter he was transferred and joined as Laboratory Assistant on 17.12.1985 in the work charged establishment. While continuing as such, vide order dated 4.11.1989, the applicant/opposite party no.1 was brought over to regular (wages) establishment provisionally as against the vacant post of Khalasi and got retirement on 30.11.2003 on completion of 58 years and as such, he is entitled to all the retiral benefits from the date of his retirement. 3. The case of the petitioners-State is that the applicant/opposite party no.1 while working as work charged Khalasi, became surplus, retrenched from service and again reengaged and joined on 17.12.1985 as Class-III work charged employee and while working there, he retired from service. 3. The case of the petitioners-State is that the applicant/opposite party no.1 while working as work charged Khalasi, became surplus, retrenched from service and again reengaged and joined on 17.12.1985 as Class-III work charged employee and while working there, he retired from service. The applicant/opposite party no.1, who was in no more an employee of Central Irrigation Circle, Bhubaneswar after his relief from the said Circular on 16.12.1985, the Superintending Engineer, Central Irrigation Circle, Bhubaneswar, passed office order dated 4.11.1989 whereby the applicant/opposite party no.1 was absorbed provisionally in the regular (wages) post of Khalasi against vacancies arising due to retirement and death of the regular incumbents and 1 ½ year after his retirement, he was finally brought over to regular (wages) establishment in the post of Khalasi w.e.f. 4.11.1989, i.e., from the date of issue of the provisional order, vide order dated 4.4.2005 and as such, by that date, i.e., 4.4.2005 the applicant/opposite party no.1 had already retired from his service as Radiographer in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 30.11.2003, hence he is not entitled to get the pension benefits. 4. The Tribunal after considering the fact that the services of the applicant/opposite party no.1 has been regularized vide order dated 4.4.2005 w.e.f. 4.11.1989 and as such, passed order directing the authorities to disburse the retrial benefits w.e.f. 30.11.2003 till his death, i.e., 22.3.2011 and thereafter, family pension be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of the applicant/opposite party no.1. The said order is under challenge before this Court by the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that since the applicant/opposite party no.1 has already retired w.e.f. 30.11.2003 and thereafter the order of regularizing him has come on 4.4.2005 and as such, he cannot be held to get the benefit of pension. 5. While, on the other hand, the plea of the applicant/opposite party no.1 is that since he has been regularized in service vide order dated 4.4.2005 w.e.f. 4.11.1989 and as such, he will be said to be under regular establishment w.e.f. 4.11.1989. Hence, he will be entitled to get his retiral benefits from 30.11.2003 till his death and considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the well reasoned order, which needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Hence, he will be entitled to get his retiral benefits from 30.11.2003 till his death and considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the well reasoned order, which needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. The fact which is admitted in this case is that the Government has come up with an office order dated 4.4.2005, although that is after retirement of the applicant/opposite party no.1 from service w.e.f. 30.11.2003, but the force of the order has been given w.e.f. 4.11.1989. By virtue of it, his services have been regularized by taking under the regular establishment. 8. It is settled that the moment a service of an incumbent is regularized by taking under regular establishment; he will be entitled to get all service benefits legally permissible under the service rules. 9. Here in the instant case, the applicant/opposite no.1 has been regularized w.e.f. 4.11.1989 and the order of regularization has been passed only after his retirement from service, i.e., 4.4.2005 when he was superannuated from service, i.e., 30.11.2003. But merely because he has been superannuated from service, he cannot be deprived from service benefits, since it is the decision of the authority to take him under regular establishment w.e.f. 4.11.1989. 10. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the aspect of the matter and the decision of the authority, has passed the well reasoned order. 11. In view of the facts as stated above and considering the position of law, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not made any error in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.