JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE , J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release his pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits on account of superannuation from service on 31.08.2023 as Bus Conductor under the State Transport Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as Conductor on ad hoc basis in the State Transport Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide appointment order dated 04.07.1989, after due process of selection held on 21.06.1989. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 16.01.2004 with retrospective effect from 07.02.2002 pursuant to the order passed in WP(C) No. 90(AP)/2002, dated 27.02.2002. The petitioner duly intimated the authorities about his retirement on 26.04.2023 and accordingly was released from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023. 4. It is contended that despite repeated approaches, the petitioner has neither been paid his provisional pension nor the regular pension since his retirement. It is also contended that on enquiry, it is found that the Finance and Accounts Officer for Directorate of Audit and Pension, Naharlagun has returned the pension papers for resubmission after obtaining from competent authority with regard to the condonation of over age of 5 (five) years, as the petitioner was found to have been appointed at the age of 38 years 8 months and 15 days, which was communicated to the Superintendent, State Transport Service, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 10.10.2023. Pursuant thereto, the General manager, State Transport Service has written a letter to the Commissioner, Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 27.010.2023, requesting to condone the age of the petitioner by 5 (five) years in order to finalized his pension case. However, as on date, nothing has been finalized by the respondent authorities, which has deprived the right of the petitioner to receive pension. 5. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that pension is not a bounty but a vested right, and denial thereof violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While referring to order dated 17.11.2022, passed by the Secretary, Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. 5. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that pension is not a bounty but a vested right, and denial thereof violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While referring to order dated 17.11.2022, passed by the Secretary, Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. Tama submits that a similarly situated employee of the same department, who has retired from his service as a driver, has been condoned his age of 7 years 7 months and 20 days and allowed to have all the pensionary benefits. However, in the case of present petitioner, the respondent authorities, particularly, the Commissioner/ Secretary of the Transport Department, has not taken any action even after a lapse of nearly 2 (two) years. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities, particularly, the Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, may be directed to condone the age of the petitioner by condoning the requisite years of 5 years in order to finalize his pension case so that the petitioner could receive his pensionary benefits. 6. Despite granting of several opportunities, the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 1, have not filed any affidavit in which case the doctrine of non-traverse can be pressed into service. 7. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, fairly submits that no affidavit could be filed as no instruction was forthcoming and from the materials available, it appears that the petitioner is entitled to a condonation of his age of 5 years as he has already been retired from his service on 31.08.2023 and the petitioner is being deprived of his pensionary and other retirement benefits due to non-consideration of the case of the petitioner with regard to condonation of his age by the respondent authorities. More so, the department appears to have condoned the age of a similarly situated employee who had retired from service having the deficiency in the age for providing pensionary benefits. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. As noted above, the main contesting respondents, particularly the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has not filed any affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition and therefore, this Court is inclined to press into service the doctrine of non-traverse. As noted above, the main contesting respondents, particularly the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has not filed any affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition and therefore, this Court is inclined to press into service the doctrine of non-traverse. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner is deemed to be admitted by the State respondent. 9. As briefly noted above, the admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 on ad hoc basis. However, his service was regularized vide order dated 16.01.2004 with retrospective effect from 07.02.2002 pursuant to the order passed in WP(C) No. 90(AP)/2002, dated 27.02.2002. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was appointed at the age of 38 years, 8 months and 15 days, for which 5 (five) years of over age need to be condoned if the appointment order of the petitioner is counted form the date of regularization. It is also seen that the Department has condoned such over age of the similarly situated employee, who had retired as Driver, by condoning the over age of 7 years, 7 months and 20 days. 10. In such circumstances, it would be arbitrary and illegal on the part of the respondent authorities to not consider the case of the petitioner by depriving him of his rightful pensionary benefits. 11. Having considered above and considering the undisputed facts and claim not being contested, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate and for the interest of justice to direct the Commissioner, TPT, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to consider and condone the age of the petitioner by 5 years in order to finalize the pension of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the Commissioner, TPT, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to condone the over age of 5 years within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon such condonation, the complete pension papers shall be forwarded to the Directorate of Audit and Pension, Government of Arunachal Pradesh within a period of 15 days thereafter for early finalization of the petitioner’s pension. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.