IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 2946 of 2006 Raj Banshi Roy, son of late Bacha Rai, resident of village – Narahawan Shukla, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj -Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3 Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna 5 District Education Officer, Siwan 6 District Provident Fund Officer, Siwan 7 Accountant General, Bihar, Patna -Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Mukesh Kr Thakur, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr A C to G A I *** 3 20.05.2011 The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that his retiral dues should have been calculated by the Government and approved by the Accountant General taking into account his full service career and not truncated. Counter affidavit has been filed and with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Apart from placing reliance on a resolution of the State Government being No 636 dated 18.07.1992, petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Singh –Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 239. The facts, in the present case, are that on 01.07.1957, petitioner joined a recognised School at Gopalganj and continued there till 19.01.1971. On the very next day that is 20.01.1971, he was appointed Headmaster and joined as such in a proposed School which received 2 permission to establish on 12.11.1973 and recognition was granted on 06.10.1975. Petitioner superannuated on 30.04.1996. All along, petitioner had been receiving his remunerations from the Government through the School. For the purposes of calculating his retiral dues, the services from the date permission to establish was granted is being taken that is with effect from 12.11.1973. Thus, his service that is being reckoned for the purposes of retiral dues is of about 23 years as against 39 years if his joining in the recognised School at Gopalganj on 01.07.1957 is taken into account. If we refer Circular No 636 dated 18.07.1992 and, in particular, Clause-Gha thereof, it would be seen that the Government, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, has granted continuity of service as between Teachers moving from one recognised School to another proposed School which subsequently receives recognition. Petitioner, in my view, rightly submits that he was earlier in a recognised School and then shifted to a proposed School which subsequently received recognition as well. Petitioner has further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Shyam Kishore Singh (supra). There, the facts were that the petitioner had worked in a recognised School from 1966 to 1983. He then joined in other Schools which were then taken over by the Government in 1988 whereafter the petitioner became Government employee. He superannuated in the year, 2000. When it came to pensionary benefits, his service period was counted from 1988. Upon the writ petition being filed, it was dismissed but was allowed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that his entire service right from 1966 in a recognised School had to be taken into account. The 3 objection of Accountant General, which is in similar terms in the present case, was set aside. In my view, once the Government’s Resolution is to give recognition of service rendered in between two proposed Schools, it is not understandable why recognition of service as between recognised School and another recognised School cannot be granted. There are four stages in respect of a School. First, proposed School, then permission to establish and then recognition followed by take over, if any. In the present case, it would be seen that the petitioner’s School, in which he earlier served, was a recognised School from the time petitioner had joined there in the year, 1957. He then joined a proposed School which later became a recognised School. There was no break in service. He resigned from the earlier School on 19.01.1971 and on 20.01.1971, he joined the proposed School as Headmaster. Thus, keeping in view the Circular aforesaid and the Division Bench judgment aforementioned, I have no option but to direct that, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, petitioner’s services in the recognised School from 1957 has to be taken into account and the objection, as against it, by the Accountant General cannot be upheld. It is, accordingly, set aside. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)