JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 6; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 5; and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos. 3 & 7. 2. The necessary facts which are not in dispute and which are also reflected in the Pension Payment Order [PPO] of the petitioner being PPO no. ADP/PRI/PPO /GPO/2012/000668 [at page 77 of the case papers] can be stated as follows :- the petitioner had joined as a Gaon Panchayat Secretary under Kamrup Zilla Parishad pursuant to an order dated 01.03.1967 passed by the Secretary, Dalbari Sormojuli Gaon Panchayat and he retired from service as Secretary of Singnimari Gaon Panchayat under Kamrup Zilla Parishad on 30.06.2000 on reaching the age of superannuation. 3. During the service tenure of the petitioner, the State Government had enacted the Assam Panchayat Employees [Provincialisation] Act, 1999 [‘the Act’, for short] and as per the provisions of the Act, the provincialised Panchayat Secretaries are to be provided pension and other retirement dues in terms of the provisions of the Act. The services of the petitioner came to be provincialised accordingly, in terms of the provisions of the Act. 4. When a dispute arose as regards the date from which the period of services of the provincialised Panchayat Secretaries was to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retirement dues under the provisions of the Act, litigations ensued. A Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 145/2009 [The State of Assam & another vs. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi] and a batch of writ petitions in its common Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 set the issue at rest by holding that the benefits of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees [Provincialisation] Act, 1999 [the Act] including those for pension and other retirement dues, would be available to the provincialised employees in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their services reckoned from the dates of their initial appointments. Special leave petitions, Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] Nos. 19351– 19360/2010 preferred against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 02.08.2010. Special leave petitions, Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] Nos. 19351– 19360/2010 preferred against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 02.08.2010. Thereafter, the State Government in the Pension and Public Grievances Department issued a Notification dated 17.03.2011, whereby, it had been ordered that the benefits of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees [Provincialisation] Act, 1999 [the Act] including those for pension and other retirement dues applicable to the State Government Employees, would also be available to the provincialised Panchayat Employees who were in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the dates of their initial appointments in the service of Panchayats. The said Notification was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. 5. The PPO no. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000668 issued in respect of the petitioner has specifically stated that the date of petitioner’s entry in service is 01.03.1967 and the petitioner’s date of retirement is 30.06.2000. The total period of service rendered by the petitioner was 33 years 3 months 29 days. Yet, the pension disbursal authority had calculated the petitioner’s monthly pension @ Rs. 1,870/-per month w.e.f. 01.07.2000 with the observation that a period of 7 years 5 months 19 days could not be counted for the purpose of pension and the said period has not been treated as part of the qualifying service. Resultantly, the petitioner’s net qualifying service has been counted as 25 years 10 months 15 days. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that the position has been settled by the Judgment and Order rendered in Writ Appeal no. 145/2009 and other writ petitions as the special leave to appeal preferred against the said Judgment and Order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 02.08.2010. Mr. Dutta has submitted that this writ petition can be disposed of in similar manner as the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4414/2022 was disposed, in case of a similarly situated employee except imposition of the interest part. 7. In the Notification dated 17.03.2011 of the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Government of Assam, which was issued after the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 passed in Writ Appeal no. 145/2009 and other writ petitions, and the Order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] no[s]. 7. In the Notification dated 17.03.2011 of the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Government of Assam, which was issued after the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 passed in Writ Appeal no. 145/2009 and other writ petitions, and the Order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] no[s]. 19351-19360/2010 [State of Assam and others vs. Syed Md. Fazilay Rabbi and others] dismissing the SLPs preferred against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010, it was clearly spelt out that the benefits of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees [Provincialisation] Act, 1999 including those for pension and other retirement dues applicable to the State Government employees would be available to the Provincialised Panchayat Employees who were in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the dates of their initial appointment in the service of Panchayat. 8. A combine reading of the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2010 passed in a writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 145/2009 [The State of Assam & another vs. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi], annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition; and the Notification dated 17.03.2011, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, goes to point out clearly that for the purpose of pension and other retirement dues, the entire period of 33 years 3 months 29 days from the petitioner’s date of entry into service [01.03.1967] till his date of retirement on superannuation [30.03.2000] is required to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retirement dues. As such, the decision not to count the period of 7 years 5 months 19 days for the purpose of pension and making calculation of the pension amount are found to be incongruent and impermissible and the same are accordingly, are set aside. 9. As a corollary, the respondent authorities shall now work out the entitlement of the pension and other retirement dues of the petitioner by counting his total period of service as 33 years 3 months 29 days and issue a fresh Pension Payment Order in supersession of the earlier PPO no. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000668. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 [three] months from the date submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5. The objection advanced by Mr. ADP/PRI/PPO/GPO/2012/000668. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 [three] months from the date submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5. The objection advanced by Mr. Dutta regarding imposition of interest after consideration, deserves to be rejected. It is observed that in the event the exercise, as directed above, is not completed within a period of 3 [three] months from the said date, the same will carry an interest of 6% per annum. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.