CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12099 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. -------- RAM PANDIT SINGH S/O LATE JAGDIP SINGH OF VILLAGE- DHAKHI BIGHA,PS.-MAKHDUMPUR,DISTT-JEHANABAD--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE HON'BLE CHANCELLOR,MAGADH UNIVERSITY,RAJ BHAWAN,PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR & CHANCELLOR, RAJ BHAWAN,PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERISTY, BODH GAYA 5. REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 6. SECRETARY, BIHAR INTER UNIVERSITY BOARD, PATNA— ----------RESPONDENTS. -------- For The Petitioner :Mr. Rajiv verma, Sr.Advocate,& Mr. A.K.Singh,Advocate For The University: Mr.J.S.Barnawal,Advocate For the Chancellor: Mr.Shivendra Mishra,Advocate. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents State authority as well as the Magadh University authority to treat the service rendered by the petitioner from 14.4.1955 to 16.10.1962 under the Gaya Collectorate as part and parcel of the service rendered in continuity even under the university and thereafter fix his pension based on total period of service rendered by him both under the State and the University. As per the assertion of the petitioner he was appointed in a substantive capacity as a lower division clerk under the State Government and posted in the Collectorate of Gaya on 14.4.1955 on a salary of Rs. 50 per month. Subsequently based on advertisement issued by the Magadh University petitioner applied for the post, sat in the written test and viva voce examination and on having succeeded decided to opt for the service of the - 2 - university by leaving the Government service which he had entered initially. Petitioner served the university till he reached the age of superannuation. After superannuation it seems that the number of years put by the petitioner in the university is not sufficient to beget him 100% pension. He is short of about three years and therefore he decided to file the present writ application for direction that seven years of services which he had rendered under the State Government should be counted as the service rendered under the university. Basis for such a claim is that at a point of time some kind of policy decision was taken by the Financial Advisor of the university and a recommendation was made to amend certain provision existing in Rule 5(2) (ii) to allow the employees the benefit of service rendered by them under the State Government on the basis of appointment/transfer of services to the university. But then it is not the case of the petitioner that the recommendation by the Financial Advisor ever culminated into a corresponding amendment in the statute of the University. Petitioner therefore wants a direction upon the respondents to bring about the change in the rule or the Act to extend him the benefit of service as claimed by him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and they have stated that all the benefit admissible to the petitioner has been given to him but in absence of any change in the statute or an amendment in this regard there is no occasion either for the State Government or the University authority to add - 3 - seven years of service which the petitioner had rendered under the State Government to be part and parcel of the period along with service of university and treat it as a whole. In fact, an identical situation with similar relief was turned down by a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 7102 of 1997 dated 8.2.2000 which has been brought on record as annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The Court has gone through this decision and the case of the present petitioner is no different from the case of the petitioner of the above mentioned writ application. Not only this in absence of any clear cut statute being in existence in favour of the petitioner, no direction can be issued either to the State or to the University to treat the period of service rendered by the petitioner under the State Government to be part and parcel of the service under the University. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 18th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr.Secy.