IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4678 of 2007 PRAGASH MAHTO, son of late Lal Bihari Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Ram Bag Mali Asthan, P.S. Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, Bihar 4. The Deputy Secretary, Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, Bihar 5. The Principal, Dharm Samaj Sanskrit College, Muzaffarpur, Rambag, Muzaffarpur … Respondents ----------- 2. 30.7.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer for the following relief: “I) For issuance of order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from January, 1988 to December, 1991. II) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to pay the salary to the petitioner of aforesaid period with interest in accordance with law.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Peon and such appointment had not only received 2 approval of the Government and the University, vide orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2, but there was also a clear order for absorbing the petitioner in the university service on the stipulation of payment of salary from the funds of the University, there would be no valid reason for non-payment of salary of the petitioner for the period January, 1988 to December, 1991. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner being a Government servant who after superannuation had been appointed in the University service, he would be definitely entitled for payment of salary in terms of the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2 but only after deduction of pension which he had already drawn from the Government. The petitioner cannot claim pension from the Government and salary from the University. There is no counter affidavit which could have clarified the issue with regard to non-payment of salary of the petitioner but then, as noted above, since the claim of payment of salary of the petitioner is 3 admitted, vide Annexures 1 and 2, the University must do the needful for making payment of salary but only to the extent it is permissible under the Rules by way of deducting the amount of pension already drawn by the petitioner from the Government. This exercise must be completed by the authority of the University within a period of one month from the date when the petitioner would file a representation enclosing the details of pension already drawn by him in the period January, 1988 to December, 1991. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/