Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. -the petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28-11-94, contained in annexure-2, issued by the assistant Manager, (Pension), Road Corporation of India (respondent No.5) for Regional Director (Food), whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for counting/exceptance of his services rendered under the State govt. of Bihar for the period from 6-8-1947 to 22-3-1955 in conjunction with the services under RDF/fct for the purpose of pensionary benefits has been rejected by the Ministry of Food. Further, it has been prayed that respondents be directed to make computation of final pension of the petitioner by adding the aforesaid period of his service rendered under the Government of bihar to services rendered by him in the central Govt. namely, the Ministry of food and also to pay interest over and above the amount of arrears and damages on account of harassment caused to him since 1980. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner, who was a graduate, was appointed as temporary Assistant in the Department of Health, Government of Bihar on 6-8-1947 and he worked in the said department till 5-1-1950. From 6-1-1950 he joined as Provincial marketing Inspector, which was later converted into Assistant Marketing officer and continued on the same till 28-2-1955. The petitioner worked as supply Inspector under the then department of Supply and Price Control from 1-3-1955 to 22-3-1955. The Food storage Depots of the Central Government, which were managed by the State government till 28-2- 1955 were taken over by the Central Government from 1-3-1955. After the take over the petitioner was given option to remain in state Government service or to opt for central Government service. A Board was also constituted by the Government of India for screening out the employees, in which the petitioner was selected and was asked to join the government of India, where he joined on 23-2-1955 in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Later, while retaining lien in the said Ministry the petitioner was deputed under the Food Corporation of India, from where he superannuated as Assistant Manager on 31-12-1980. His pension has been computed, counting his services from the date of joining the Central Government i. e.23-3-1955 to 31-12-1980, ignoring the services rendered by him under the government of Bihar for the aforementioned period. 3. His pension has been computed, counting his services from the date of joining the Central Government i. e.23-3-1955 to 31-12-1980, ignoring the services rendered by him under the government of Bihar for the aforementioned period. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and he also made serveral representations before various authorities for computation of his pension, by taking into consideration his services rendered by him under the State Government. The government of Bihar, vide Memo No.1808 dated 7- 5-94 certified about the service rendered by the petitioner under it during the aforementioned period in question and by annexure-1 recommended the Regional Manager (East), food Corporation of India for computation of his pension on that basis, which, however, has been turned down by the impugned order. 4. It is contended that under the government of India, Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms circular contained in letter No.3 (20)/pan (A/79) dated 31st March, 1982, addressed to all State Governments except the State of Jammu and kashmir and Nagaland the proportionate pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the central Government and State Governments to the extent Such service would be qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of respective Government, will be shared by the Government concerned, on a service share basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service bath under the Central Government and the State Government for grant of pension by the Government from where they eventually retired. The gratuity, if any, received by the Government employee for temporary service under the Central or State Governments will, however, have to be refunded by him to the Government concerned. 5. Thus, according to the petitioner, who rendered services under the Government of Bihar prior to joining the Central Government and retired from the Food Corporation of India under the Central Government Service, is entitled to the benefit of counting his services both under the Central Government and the State Government for grant of pension by the Food Corporation of India under the Central Government from where he eventually retired. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it officials-respondents Nos.6 and 7 in which the aforementioned facts have not been disputed. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it officials-respondents Nos.6 and 7 in which the aforementioned facts have not been disputed. Further, it is stated that the central Government, vide its letter dated 9-10-1986 has taken decision that an employee, who has rendered services where the Central Government/state government prior to securing post under the various State Governments/central Government and has confirmed on the said post permanently, he is allowed retirement benefit of his past services by the Government, from where he finally retired. It is further stated that the State Government vide memo No.1399, dated 19-3-90 was communicated to all the Departments/heads of the Departments and commissioners with regard to the aforesaid decision. Photo copy of the said letter dated 19-3-90 has been annexed as annexure a to the counter affidavit. Thus, it is stated that in view of the decision of the Central Government the Food Corporation of India is liable to pay the pensionary benefit of the petitioners by counting the services rendered by him in the State of Bihar for the period 6- 8-1947 to 19-3-1955. 7. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Food Corporation of India and its officers. With reference to the said counter-affidaivt it is contended by Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned Addl. S. C. for Central Government appearing for the Food Corporation of India that in view of Rule 14 (3)of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules 1972 as also, as per the aforementioned government of Indias instructions dated 31st March, 1982, the case of the petitioner was not covered for computation of pension on the basis of the services rendered by him in the Stale government. It is submitted that from para 4 of the aforesaid Governmental instructions it is amply clear that the said instruction is applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively and, thus, according to him, the said instructions would not apply to the case of the petitioner, as he retired on 31-12-1980 i. e. much before the said instruction was issued. 8. Mr. It is submitted that from para 4 of the aforesaid Governmental instructions it is amply clear that the said instruction is applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively and, thus, according to him, the said instructions would not apply to the case of the petitioner, as he retired on 31-12-1980 i. e. much before the said instruction was issued. 8. Mr. Amarnath Singh, learned standing Counsel for the State submitted that as per clause 2 (b) of the central Governments instructions contained in Finance Ministry letter No.14 (5)/86- 7a-1029, dated 9-10-86, which is referred to in annexure-A, read with the aforementioned Central Government instructions of 1982, the pension of petitioner has to be fixed and paid by the Food Corporation of India on computation of the services rendered by him under the State Government. According to him, the denial of the benefit arising from the aforementioned Central government instructions dated 31st march, 1982 and 9th October, 1986 to those, who retired prior to that the date is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of r. L. Marwaha V/s. Union of India and others, reported in (1989) 4 S. C. C.31. The learned Counsel also submitted that the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of R. L. Marwaha squarely covers the case of the petitioner and the Food Corporation of india does not justifiably deny the benefit of computation of pension by counting the services rendered by the petitioner under the State Government under the aforesaid Central governments instructions on a plea that they apply only to persons, who retired after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions and not to those cases where the employee retired from service prior to the issuance of the aforementioned Governmental instructions. 9. The facts of the case before the supreme Court in the aforementioned case was that the petitioners served the central Government on temporary basis from October 4, 1950 to November 23, 1953 and on the same day, i. e. November 23, 1953, he joined the service of ICAR, an autonomous body. The post held by him under the Central government and thereafter under the icar were pensionable. He retired from the service of the ICAR on September 30, 1980. The post held by him under the Central government and thereafter under the icar were pensionable. He retired from the service of the ICAR on September 30, 1980. On retirement he demanded that his pensionary benefits be computed by counting the period of service put in by him in the Central government department as part of his qualifying service in view of para 3 (A) (i)of O. M. No.23/10/84-Pension Unit, dated August 20, 1984. This was denied and he was accorded pensionary benefits by reckoning his qualifying service from november 23, 1953 to September 30, 1980 only on the ground that as he retired before the issue of the o. M. , he was not entitled to the benefit of para 3 (A) (i) in view of the prospective effect given to the O. M. by para 7 thereof. The Supreme Court held that para 7 of the Government order cannot be used against persons in the position of the petitioner to deny them the benefit of the past services for the purpose of computing the pension. The supreme Court accordingly held that the benefit of the O. M. should be extended to all pensioners, who had rendered service earlier in the Central government or in the autonomous body as the case may be with effect from the date of the said Government order. It was also held by the Apex Court that the classification of the pensioners who were working in the Government/autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement must be held to be unconstitutional as it bears no nexus to the object to be achieved by the order. 10. It was also held by the Apex Court that the classification of the pensioners who were working in the Government/autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement must be held to be unconstitutional as it bears no nexus to the object to be achieved by the order. 10. It is true that vide para 4 of the aforementioned 1982 Central Government instructions, the orders contained therein are to come into force with effect from the date of issue and cases of such Government servants retiring on that date and thereafter are to be regulated accordingly, but in view of the principle laid down in the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, in the absence of any acceptable explanation, the classification of the pensioners, who were working in the Central Government and State government into two classes merely on the basis of date of retirement for applicability of the said central Government instructions must be held to be unconstitutional, as it bears to nexus to the object to be achieved by them, inasmuch as, it is difficult to hold that the aforementioned Central Government instructions were issued with the object to deprive an employee the benefit of his past services rendered under the aforementioned two different Governments for the purpose of computation of pension. 11. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned decision of the Ministry of Food contained in annexure-2 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to make computation of final pension of the petitioner by adding the period 6-8-1947 to 22-3-1955, during which the petitioner rendered services in the government of Bihar and, accordingly, to pay the difference of the amount payable from 31st March, 1982. For the period prior to 31st March, 1982 the state Government shall be liable to pay the proportionate difference of amount to the petitioner if any the said payment must be made to the petitioner by the respective Government within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum over the remaining dues payable to him by the respective/government, which shall also be computed and paid within the aforesaid time. In the result, the writ application is allowed, but without costs. Petition Allowed.