IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4243 of 2005 RAM NATH MAHTO, son of late Shree Bhondu mahto, Resident of village Sonaruh, P.O. + P.S. Fatwa, District – Patna. ………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Danapur, Patna. ……………….. Respondents 05. 05.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the A.G. Petitioner is aggrieved by re-fixation of his pension vide order dated 27.5.2004 as well as his gratuity vide order dated 10.7.2004. Earlier authorization of pension of Rs.3168/- per month was issued in favour of the petitioner. So was the gratuity. But subsequently since this benefit was sought to be taken away petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the re-fixation. Respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and explain the circumstance where such a decision detrimental to the interest of the petitioner had been taken. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3, District Superintendent of Education, Patna has come to be filed. They have stated in the counter affidavit that there has been a mistake in the calculation of the length of service the petitioner has rendered under the respondents. Petitioner was an assistant teacher who had joined the school in question no doubt way back on 12.4.1968 but his service only came to be confirmed by the Managing Committee from 30.7.1974. When this anomaly was discovered the respondents had - 2 - to redo the authorization of pension and gratuity which was made in favour of the petitioner. There is no denial by the petitioner that he was given confirmation by the Managing Committee only from 30.7.1974, i.e. after taking over the school. His service prior to that has no meaning in this background. In view of the above position and cogent material on record brought with the counter affidavit in this regard, the action of the respondents by correcting length of service of the petitioner and re- fixation of pension and gratuity can not be termed as arbitrary or irrational. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits based on department’s resolution dated 19.4.1990 which has been brought on record with the supplementary rejoinder that petitioner is entitled to pension to be calculated at 50 per cent of the last average emoluments but the Court is constrained to record that fixation of pension is not only governed by the said resolution of the Finance Department but other rules where the length of service has to be taken into consideration before final fixation of pension. There is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)