Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner was serving the State Government as a school teacher and has reached the ordinary age of superannuation on the 1st of March, 1987. In 1983, he made an application for extension of two years of his service under the provisions of the State notification, Annexure-7. Since no order has been passed on the application and he has been made to retire on the 1st of March, 1987, he has come to this Court by the present writ application. 2. A decision was taken by the State Government on the 13th February, 1982 vide Annexure-6 to extend the service of a Government servant by a period of two years if he had suffered imprisonment for at least three months on account of his involvement in the 1942 National Movement, In 1983, another notification was issued, a copy whereof in Annexure-7. While reiterating the decision in Annexure-6, Annexure.7, further stated that the Government servants who are entitled to the benefits of the decision must make their applications latest by the l5th August, 1983 and such applications which are filed thereafter, shall not be entertained. According to the petitioners case he made his application in time. 3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner did not send his application in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 7 of annexure-7 and his claim cannot be entertained and examined on merits. 4. The petitioner has asserted that he filed his application before the headmaster of the School where he was working on the 27th ; of July, 1983 with copies to the Director, Primary Education, and the Director-cum-Special Secretary a id the Headmaster forwarded it immediately to the Deputy Inspector, Primary education, Gaya who forwarded it to the District Superintendent of Education, gaya. A copy of the entry in the peon book of the school is annexed as annexure-10 and it indicates that it was received in the office of the Deputy inspector on that very date. It appears that the application reached the District superintendent of Education on or before the 10th November, 1984, who made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mrs. It appears that the application reached the District superintendent of Education on or before the 10th November, 1984, who made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mrs. Indu Prabha Singh, the learned Government Pleader No.6, has contended that the petitioner had no business to file his application before the headmaster as paragraph 7 of Annexure 7 requires an applicant to file his petition in the department. It is said that the Headmaster, although paid by the education Department, cannot be treated to be member of the Education department of the State. It is true that the aforesaid paragraph 7 requires an applicant to file his petition in the Department and, if the Headmaster is supposed not to be working in the Department Mrs. Government Pleader may be right. However, accepting the States plea that the Headmaster was not the appropriate authority before whom an application could be filed it cannot be further suggested that the Deputy Inspector also was not an officer in the department. The next question is as to when the Deputy Inspector received the application. In reply to my querry the learned Government Pleader said that she is not in a position to give that date and she can only say that so far the district Superintendent of Education is concerned, he received the application in November, 1984, that is, after more than one year of the due date. The assertion made by the petitioner is supported by a copy of the peon book, annexure-10, which indicates that the Deputy Inspector had received the application on 27-7-83. This assertion is not being challenged by an affidavit. The Deputy Inspector is a State servant working in the Education Department. If the petitioner has wrongly asserted the fact that the application reached him on the 27th of July, 1983 the respondents could have denied the allegations and could have given the correct date on which the application was actually received by him. In absence of a denial I accept the petitioners case. 6. If the petitioner has wrongly asserted the fact that the application reached him on the 27th of July, 1983 the respondents could have denied the allegations and could have given the correct date on which the application was actually received by him. In absence of a denial I accept the petitioners case. 6. The learned Government Pleader next contended that the Rule requires that the application should be sent through registered post and not through the headmaster or the Headmasters peon if the Rule is interpreted liberally the state Counsel may be right, but in view of the entire provision of Annexure-7, i hold that the violation of this requirement has to be treated as a mere irregularity and not mandatory so as to defeat the right of the petitioner. If the petitioner was actually in Jail for the requisite period, and pressed his bona fide claim in time, the alleged violation in adoption the procedure cannot be treated to be fatal. It must, therefore, be held that the petitioner is entitled to get his claim examined on merits and receive the benefits, if his claim is found to be correct. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to consider the petitioners application and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as may be possibile and as far at may be practicable within a period of three months from today. If the decision is in his favour the petitioner shall be re-instated in service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before me that since march, 1987, the petitioner has not been paid even his pension amount. I direct the authority to make immediate payment of the amount, which he is entitled as pension. If and when his claim for extension of service is allowed the amount paid shall be adjusted towards his regular salary. 8. The writ application is allowed in the above terms but without costs. Petition allowed.