JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 11, 1991 of learned. Single Judge allowing the writ application of the first respondent holding that he was deemed to have been validly absorbed in the service of the Rajendra Agricultural University and thus entitled to remain in employment of the University up to his attaining the age of 62 years. The stand of the University was that the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and was rightly superannuated on his attaining the age of 58 years. This order of superannuation of the University was quashed by the impugned judgment and it was directed that the petitioner would continue in service of the University till he attained the age of superanuation in terms of the University Statutes and that he be paid his wages for all this period. Aggrieved the University has filed this appeal. 2. Facts are not much in dispute. At the relevant time when Ordinance establishing the University was promulgated on February 1, 1971, the petitioner was working as Assistant Biochemist (Rice) in the Agricultural Research Institute, Patna, a department of the Government, which was a senior Class II post in the cadre of Bihar Agricultural Service. The Ordinance was later repll1ced by the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971 (Bihar Act, 7 of 1971), for short ‘the Act’ In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 26 and subsection (3) of section 39 of the Act. the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the University but he continued to be a Government servant till he was to resign from the Government service and absorbed in the service of the University. It is the effect of various provisions contained in section 39 of the Act. Some of the provisions in relevant part are as under: "(4)(a). All permanent employees of the College, Research Institute and other offices and institutions of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services have been transferred to the University, or such other permanent employees whose services are transferred by the State Government n the University from time to time will be deemed to be transferred employees of the Government. All permanent employees of the College, Research Institute and other offices and institutions of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry whose services have been transferred to the University, or such other permanent employees whose services are transferred by the State Government n the University from time to time will be deemed to be transferred employees of the Government. These employees shall retain their lien on the permanent posts that they held in Government service on a substantive basis and their service conditions will be subject to the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and other Government Rules, Regulations and Orders in force or that may be framed or issued by the State Government from time to time." "(6)(a). The transferred officers of the Bihar Agriculture service shall remain in cadre of the Bihar Agriculture Service on posts held by them on substantive capacity until their death, retirement, resignation or promotion to a higher post." "(10). The transferred Government servants may not accept pension or gratuity from the University unless they have been permanently absorbed in the service of the University with the concurrence of the State Government." "(19). Such Government servants who choose to resign Government service and enter the service of the University shall be considered for compensation, proportionate pension, provided that no such compensation, proportionate pension shall be allowed to any employee, who resigns in spite of being required by Government to serve on some other post, under the Government carrying employment not less than his pay at the time of such resignation." “(20). A transferred employee shall retire from Government service on such day as applies to other Government servants. He shall not be given extension of service without the concurrence of the State Government......... ...” "(24). Any transferred Government servant may at any time after the transfer of his service, request Government through the University for permission to resign from Government service in order to join University service on any terms as may be fixed between him and the University; Provided that Government may not grant such permission if they wish to recall such officer to Government services or if the services of such officer are required in public interest." 3. The aforesaid provisions and other provisions of section 39 of the Act, which we need not quote show that a transferred employee like the petitioner continues to be the employee of the State Government unless permanently absorbed in the service of the University and he can revert back to Government service. Power also exists with the State Government to recall any such transferred employee without assigning any reason. 4. On February 27, 1985 the University issued a circular to the petitioner that it had been decided that all Assistant Research Officers presently working as transferred employees with deputation allowance in the University shall be given U.G.C. scale of pay either from the date of Syndicate's decision (which was January 18, 1985) or from the date of their unconditional option to be absorbed in the University service whichever was later. The petitioner was advised to give his option through proper channel in the proforma prescribed latest by March 31, 1985. The petitioner by his letter dated March 28, 1985 addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture/Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna, sought to resign from Government service in order to be absorbed in the University. He wrote in this letter that he tendered his resignation from Government service in terms of subsection (19) of section 39 of the Act, to take effect from the date of my absorption under the University". Then he wrote for acceptance of his resignation on this basis and asked for “such compensation proportionate pension as I may be entitled to under the rules of Government". On the same date the petitioner also wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University giving his option to be absorbed in the University "and also submit my resignation from the Govt. service". It would appear that the University did not forward the letter of resignation of the petitioner from Government service to the State Government. This led to filing of writ petition by the petitioner being CWJC No. 2466 of 1987. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the University to forward the letter of resignation of the petitioner to the State Government with necessary comments of the University which it might deem proper. A direction was also issued to the State Government to dispose of the same as per the Act, and the Rules. This order of the Court is dated August 3, 1987. A direction was also issued to the State Government to dispose of the same as per the Act, and the Rules. This order of the Court is dated August 3, 1987. The resignation letter of the petitioner was thereafter forwarded by the University to the State Government by its letter dated August 25, 1987 under the signature of the Vice Chancellor with the following Comments :- “In this context I am to state that the Board of Management of this University, in its meeting held on 25.8.1987 took a decision not to accept the option of permanent transferred Government Servants including Sri Chatterjee for University service. As per the directives of Patna High Court the original application of Sri Chatterjee along with a copy of Agenda item No. XII and relevant minutes of the 8th meeting of the Board of Management are forwarded herewith for the perusal and necessary action of the Government. This may be treated as most urgent.” The State Government by letter dated October 26, 1987 informed the University that the decision of the Board of Management of the University in not accepting the petitioner for absorption was erroneous and was in contravention of sub-section (22) of section 39 of the Ordinance and requested that the position could again be brought to the notice of the Management of the University to reconsider the decision in that regard. 5. Nothing happened on the letter of the petitioner dated March 28, 1985 seeking his resignation from Government service. On September 30, 1987 he superannuated on his reaching the age of 58 years and was retired. The communication of the University in this regard is dated October 8, 1987 and is to the following effect.- "Sri S.K. Chatterjee. Asstt. Bio-Chemist (Rice) Agricultural Research Institute, Patna, a permanent Govt. employee superannuated from Govt. service on 30.9.87 on completing 58 years of age. Sd/Illegible, Regional Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Patna. " Copy of this communication was also addressed to the petitioner, to the Director of Agriculture, State Government and to all concerned authorities. It would appear that the matter rested at that. That was not to be so. 6. By notification dated February 17, 1989, the State Government accepted the resignation of the petitioner from Government service with effect from March 28, 1985 which, as noted above was the date of resignation letter of the petitioner. It would appear that the matter rested at that. That was not to be so. 6. By notification dated February 17, 1989, the State Government accepted the resignation of the petitioner from Government service with effect from March 28, 1985 which, as noted above was the date of resignation letter of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, it would appear, the petitioner filed the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 6750 of 1989 on July 28, 1989 out of which the present appeal has arisen. 7. The learned single Judge noted in his judgment that the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit had cited a number of cases in which person similarly situated like the petitioner were absorbed in the University employment and that the petitioner had also cited cases in which the State Government accepted resignation of various persons from retrospective dates. The Learned single Judge noted that there was no denial or explanation to these averments by the University. After narrating the facts of the case, the learned single Judge held as under, “In this back ground I find that the University was not within its right in not accepting the petitioner in its employment even though his resignation was accepted by the Government vide notification dated 17.2.1989 with effect from 28.3.1985. I find that be petitioner once having exercised his option and having tendered his resignation in pursuance of the Vice Chancellor's communication was curiously forsaken both by the State Government and the University and was, thus, made to suffer for no fault of his.” The learned single Judge also observed that after having asked the petitioner to exercise his option the University was estopped from rejecting his absorption in its employment and accordingly the learned single Judge held "that the petitioner should be deemed to have been validly absorbed in the University employment and should be treated as an employee of the University". The learned single Judge, therefore, quashed the order of superannuation of the petitioner retiring him on September 30, 1937 on his attaining the age of 58 years and a direction was issued" that the petitioner should continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation in terms of the University's statutes. He must also be paid his wages for this period within four months from the date of receipt of this order''. Aggrieved, the University has filed this appeal. 8. It was submitted by Mr. He must also be paid his wages for this period within four months from the date of receipt of this order''. Aggrieved, the University has filed this appeal. 8. It was submitted by Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the University, that the State Government could not have accepted the resignation of the petitioner from retrospective date and that action was in itself illegal. He said that the petitioner did not give any unconditional option to be absorbed in the University employment inasmuch as in the resignation letter to the State Government he had mentioned that his resignation be accepted on his being absorbed in the University employment. His further contention was that the learned single Judge could not have given a direction as contained in the impugned judgment. 9. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that conduct of the University showed that it had treated the petitioner as its employee inasmuch as the petitioner was member of the contributory provident fund scheme and that the University wall proportionately contributing to the pension of the petitioner. It was also submitted by Mr. Ojha that the learned single Judge is right in holding that the University was estopped from questioning the status of the petitioner as its employee. We have to consider the rival contentions and the relevant provisions of the Act. 10. In his writ application the petitioner had prayed for issuance of writ mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to treat him a University servant and to pay his salary and other allowances with arrears. The learned single judge, however, by his impugned judgment went beyond the prayer sought by the petitioner and himself held that the petitioner was an employee of the University. This, to our mind, the learned single Judge could not do so At the most, he could have issued a direction to the University to reconsider the case of the petitioner for absorption on account of his resignation having been accepted by the State Government even though belatedly. There has to be specific Act, of the University that the petitioner stood absorbed in the employment of the University. That is the requirement of law. The absorption in the University employment which gives status to an employee cannot be assumed by mere conduct when the law requires otherwise. There has to be specific Act, of the University that the petitioner stood absorbed in the employment of the University. That is the requirement of law. The absorption in the University employment which gives status to an employee cannot be assumed by mere conduct when the law requires otherwise. The mere fact that the petitioner became member of the contributory provident fund scheme is also of no help to him inasmuch as the option which he exercised was of January 27, 1987 when he superannuated on September 30, 1987 and raise no objection that he had become employee of the University which would also show that he considered himself to be an employee of the State Government. As for as the question of proportionate pension is concerned, the petitioner filed yet another writ application on October 21, 1992 being C.W.J.C. No. 10677 of 1992 wherein he prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated August 31, 1992 of the State .Government which was addressed to him and is to the following effect :- “To Sri Sukumar Chatterjee, Retd. Assistant Bio-chemise (Rice), Rajendra Agricultural University, At present-Alkapuri, Gardanibagh Patna-2. Subject: Sanction of proportionate pension. Sir, As directed, in the context of your memorial dated 15.7.92 in connection with the above noted subject. I have to say that your pension papers etc. have been returned to the Controller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, vide letter no. 9451 dated 10.10.91 of the Department of Agriculture with necessary direction. Sanction for proportionate pensionary benefits will not be given separately. You may get your pensionary benefit from the University itself.” There were five respondents in the writ application including the State Government and the University. This writ application was allowed by order dated March 7, 1994 by a Bench of this Court holding that the petitioner was entitled to his proportionate pension etc. from the State Government in terms of the Act. It will be seen that this order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was an employee of the University and that from the provisions of section 39(11-A) and (17) of the Act, there could not be any doubt that financial liability to pay any contribution on account of pension of transferred employee would be on the State Government. 11. It will be seen that this order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was an employee of the University and that from the provisions of section 39(11-A) and (17) of the Act, there could not be any doubt that financial liability to pay any contribution on account of pension of transferred employee would be on the State Government. 11. We have been unable to find any Instance where the resignation of a transferred employee similarly situated as the petitioner had been accepted restrospectively when that transferred employee had already superannuated. It may be different thing that while the transferred employee is still working in the University that his resignation had been accepted restrospectively, but it is quite a different thing when a transferred employee had already superannuated and his resignation is accepted retrospectively after almost two years of his superannuation. It must be noticed that such a notification of the State Government accepting the resignation of the petitioner from a back date has caused undue financial burden on the University. He do not know what were the circumstances which led the State Government to accept the resignation of the petitioner from a back date when the fact of superannuation was well-known to the State Government and how such an order could have been made which was to the prejudice of the University. We, however, need not go into the question if the State Government was justified in law in accepting the resignation retrospectively. To us it appears that curtain was drawn when the petitioner had superannuated or September 30, 1987 when on that date his resignation by his letter dated March 28, 1985 has not been accepted by the State Government. We are also of the view that the direction issued by the learned single Judge that the petitioner be treated as an employee of the University could not have been made. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The writ application of the petitioner is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. I agree.