JUDGMENT : M. Zothankhuma, J 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. R. Choudhury. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4821/2023, by which his prayer to grant him pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 has been dismissed. 3. The appellant’s case is that consequent upon the withdrawal of the appointment of one Majibur Rahman Pradhani and on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission, vide letter dated 07.07.1987, the Governor of Assam was pleased to appoint the appellant temporarily to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Directorate of Municipal Corporation, Assam, vide Notification dated 05.07.1988. The Notification dated 05.07.1988 also stated that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary and might be terminated at any time, on 1(one) month’s notice on either side. It further stated that his services was liable to be transferred anywhere in the State of Assam including the hill areas. It may be stated here that the Municipal Administration Department (‘MAD’ in short) has now been renamed as the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. 4. The appointment letter dated 05/07/1988, appointing the petitioner to temporarily officiate as A.E.(Civil) states as follows :- “GOVERNMENT JE AGSAN MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPACINGNT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM NOTIFICATION Dt. Dispur, the 5ht July' 88. No.MA 32/84/312 : The offer of appointment of Shri Majibur Rahman Pradhani as Assistant Engineer under the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Assam, vide notification No. MA 32/84/300 dt. 31.5.88 in hereby withdrawal as he has failed to join to the post within due time. No 32/84/312 : Consequent upon the withdrawal of the appointment of Shri Majibur Rahman Pradhani and on recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission vide their letter No. 42/P30/A-45/1/84-85 dtd.7.7.87, the Governor of Assam is pleased to appoint the following person temporarily to officiate as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) under the Directorate of Municipal Adan. Assam, Hengrabari Road, Guwahati-6 in the scale of pay of 875-50-1075-EB-40-1275-EB-45-1500-50-1850/-p.m. plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from the date of joining. Engineer (Civil) under the Directorate of Municipal Adan. Assam, Hengrabari Road, Guwahati-6 in the scale of pay of 875-50-1075-EB-40-1275-EB-45-1500-50-1850/-p.m. plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from the date of joining. The appointee is to report for duties to the Director of Municipal, Administration, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 immediately before proceeding to his place of posting. The, appointment is purely temporary and my be terminated at any time on one month's notice on oither side. Their services are liable to co transferred anywhere in the State of Assam including Hill Areas.. No TA. & DA inadmissible to (…sic…) on joining the post or on terminated of appointment. He is liable to serve in any Defence Service or posts connected with the Defence of India for a period of not less than 4(four) years including the period spent on training, if any. His inter se seniority will be fixed later on. Hame and Address of the candidate Place of posting 1. Md. Azizur Rahman, Karimganj, Municipal Vill. Jogir Mahal, Board, Karimganj. P.O. Barkanda, P.S.Dhubri. Sd/- N..K.Das, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department” 5. The appellant’s services was thereafter placed at the disposal of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati, vide the Municipal Administration Department’s Notification dated 30.06.1989. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on part-time basis, to the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati, under the provisions of Section 8 of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985, in addition to his own duties as Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Administration Department, w.e.f. 03.07.1989 vide Notification dated 19.07.1989, issued by the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). 6. On 10.04.1990, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Board and he th remained on deputation till 14.12.1995. In the 18 Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Board held on 17.11.1995, a decision was taken to permanently absorb the services of the appellant into the Board. Accordingly, vide Notification dated 12.07.1996 issued by the Board, the opinion of the Municipal Administration Department was sought. 7. In the 18 Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Board held on 17.11.1995, a decision was taken to permanently absorb the services of the appellant into the Board. Accordingly, vide Notification dated 12.07.1996 issued by the Board, the opinion of the Municipal Administration Department was sought. 7. On 25.07.1996, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Municipal Administration Department issued a communication to the Board advising that the appellant should be absorbed substantively in the services of the Board under Section 22 (2)(ii) of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985. Further, the services rendered by the appellant in the State Government would have to be treated as services under the Board and that he would enjoy all the rights and privileges, i.e. leave, pension etc. in the changed situation, as he had enjoyed under the employment of the State Government. The letter dated 25.07.1996, issued by the MAD also stated that the services of the appellant should be treated as an employee of the Board from the date of his joining in the Government service, i.e. 05.07.1988. 8. Pursuant to the letter dated 25.07.1996, the respondent No.3 issued an Office Order dated 20.08.1996, stating that in pursuance to the letter dated 25.07.1996 issued by the MAD, the appellant was absorbed in the Board w.e.f. the date of his joining in Government service, i.e. 05.07.1988. 9. While in service under the Board, the appellant reached the rank of Chief Engineer on promotion and he retired as Chief Engineer on 31.01.2023. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was given all his retirement benefits including the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) dues along with the matching contribution made by the Board and gratuity, as per the entitlement of retiring employees of the Board. 10. After his retirement, the appellant made a claim for the first time that as he had been appointed as a Government servant in MAD prior to his absorption in the Board, he should be granted the benefits of pension in terms of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The said claim had been made on the ground that the appellant’s absorption into the Board had been made in terms of Section 22 (2)(ii) of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 11. The said claim had been made on the ground that the appellant’s absorption into the Board had been made in terms of Section 22 (2)(ii) of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 11. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the appellant’s appointment as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the MAD was on a temporary and officiating basis, which was never regularized or made permanent during his service period under the MAD. As such, at the time of absorption of the services of the appellant into the Board, the appointment was only on temporary Government servant, who was not eligible for grant of pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 12. Section 22 (2)(ii) of the Act states as follows :- “ Section 22 (2)(ii) – that he should be absorbed substantively in the service of the Board and then the Board will absorb him substantively in service and thereupon the services rendered by him under the State Government shall be treated as services rendered under the Board and he shall be entitled to have such rights or to such similar rights in the changed situation with regard to remuneration, leave and pension as will not be less favourable to the service conditions, agreements and rights as he would have entitled to before he was employed in the Board.” 13. A reading of the above provision shows that at the time of absorption of the service of a person working under the State Government into the Board, the services rendered by the said person under the State Government would be treated as service rendered under the Board and he would be entitled to such rights or similar rights at the time of absorption as he had, prior to absorption, including pension. However, in the present case, the appellant was a temporary/officiating Government servant and not a regular/permanent Government servant. Thus, the issue to be decided is as to whether the appellant was entitled to the grant of pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, while in service with the State Government. It he was entitled, the benefit of pension would follow him at the time of his absorption into the Board. 14. Thus, the issue to be decided is as to whether the appellant was entitled to the grant of pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, while in service with the State Government. It he was entitled, the benefit of pension would follow him at the time of his absorption into the Board. 14. A reading of Rules 31 and 36 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1969) shows that unless the service of an Officer under the Government is substantive and permanent, he is not entitled to the grant of pension. Consequently, unless Rule 36 of the Rules of 1969 is complied with, the said officer cannot be said to be qualified for pension in terms of Rule 31 of the 1969 Rules. 15. Rules 31 and 36 of the Rules of 1969 are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “ 31 . The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions :- Firstly, the service must be under Government; Secondly, the employment must be substantive and permanent; Thirdly, the service must be paid by Government; Provided that the Governor may, even though either or both of conditions (1)( and (2) above are not fulfilled,- (i) Declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension, and (ii) In individual cases and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in each case allow service rendered by an officer to count for pension.” “ 36 . Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment: Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Assam, followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post, shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of – (a) Periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment, and (b) Periods of service paid from contingencies.” 16. Though Rule 36 of 1969 Rules speaks of a substantive office and a permanent establishment, the substantive office has to be read in terms of the service of a Govt. servant, whether it is permanent, regular, temporary or officiating etc. 17. Though Rule 36 of 1969 Rules speaks of a substantive office and a permanent establishment, the substantive office has to be read in terms of the service of a Govt. servant, whether it is permanent, regular, temporary or officiating etc. 17. In the present case, the service of the appellant under the State Government was in a temporary officiating capacity, till the time of his absorption in the Board. Though persons who are working in a temporary officiating capacity under the State Government can be regularized and their services are made substantive and permanent, the same does not take away the fact that till the time the appellant was absorbed in the Board, the service of the appellant was not made substantive or permanent. As such, in terms of Section 22 (2)(ii) of the Act, the appellant could not have been absorbed in the Board with pensionable rights under the 1969 Rules, as at the time of absorption, he was not eligible to the grant of pension under the 1969 Rules. 18. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant had accepted his absorption into the Board in terms of section 22(2)(ii) of the Act and that the appellant was not a permanent/a regular/confirmed employee of the State Government at the time of his absorption into the Board, the appellant could only have taken with him the rights and privileges that he had as a temporarily officiating Govt. servant under the MAD. 19. The Board is a non-pensionable establishment and as the appellant could not take with him any right beyond his entitlement as a temporary officiating Government servant at the time of his absorption into the Board, the appellant cannot be given any retirement benefits beyond the rights and privileges granted to the retired employees of the Board. 20. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the prayer for the petitioner for grant of pension under the 1969 Rules. 21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.