Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for an order/ direction to the respondents to add the period of service of the petitioner while he was posted as an Assistant Teacher in S.S. High School, Baghmara (Dhanbad) for drawing full pension along with other relief/ reliefs for which the petitioner was found entitled. 2. The brief facts leading to this application are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed on 1-11-1957 at S.S. High School, Baghmara (in short School-1) as an Assistant Teacher and since then he was in regular service without any stigma till 31st December, 1970. The petitioners service was also approved by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Baghmara (Katrasgarh) vide his Memo No. 213/3-A-N-61, Katrasgarh dated 31st January, 1962 (Annexure-1). The aforesaid School was given opening permission and permanent recognition by the Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Bihar, Patna vide his letter No. 15192/96 Patna dated 31st August, 1961 and Memo No. 3132 Patna dated 20th February, 1962, (Annexures-5 & 5/A) respectively. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in D.P.L.M. High School, Nawagarh (in short School-2) and he joined there on 1-1-1971 and since then he was in service regularly without any stigma. The Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Bihar, Patna, granted the opening permission to School-2 on 24-11-73 vide his Memo No. 69705-707 dated 21-1-1974 (Annexure-9). The School-2 was recognised on 30-1-1980. with effect from 1-1-1980 by the order of the Chairman, Bihar Secondary Education Board, Patna, vide his Memo No. 857-63 Patna dated 30th January, 1980, It is further contended that this School-2 was nationalised by the Government of Bihar vide its Memo No. 1999 Patna dated 2-10-1980 (Annexures-10 & 10/A). It is further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31-12-1994. The competent authority sanctioned his previous service and also two annual increments. But, the Respondent No. 12 A.G. (A & E)-II, Bihar, Patna, refused the aforesaid two increments and ordered for recovery of all amounts by his order dated 4-1-1995 which is apparent from the order of the Deputy Secretary of the Government vide his Memo No. 2345 Patna dated 22-8-1997. It is contended that the aforesaid orders of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. It is contended that the aforesaid orders of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2691 /96(R) which was heard by Hon ble R.N. Prasad, J. who by his order dated 1-10-1996 directed the petitioner to file a detailed information annexing the relevant documents before Respondent No. 3 Director, Bihar Secondary Education, Amrapali Bhawan, Patna, within a period of 15 days and also directed the Respondent No. 3 that in case such a detailed claim is filed before him by the petitioner, he will consider whether the petitioner is entitled for the retirement dues or not and if he comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the same, the entire arrear dues must be paid to him within three months (Annexure-1). Accordingly, the petitioner tiled a detailed claims regarding adding his service while he worked at School-1 for pension papers. But, the aforesaid claim was partially rejected and partially granted by Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 3 has granted him provisional pension, according to disposal of his detailed claim as per last pay certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful dues and hence he has filed this application for necessary directions/orders. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit stating that he has served School-1 from 1-11-1957 to 31-12-1970 and after 31-12-1970 he was on leave without pay from 1-1-1971 to 31-12-1972. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that he is entitled for retiral benefits from the date of his initial appointment till date of his retirement as there was no break in his service, 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. From the facts stated above, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in School-1 on 1-11-1957. At that time the said School-1 was governed by the Managing Committee of the School and the petitioner was appointed by the said Committee. The said School-1 was granted partial recognition by the Secretary, Secondary Education Council on 1-11-1961 and got full recognition from the State Government on 1-11-1962 and the petitioners service was approved with retrospective effect from 1 -11-1957. The petitioner worked in the School-1 till 31-12-1957. The said School-1 was granted partial recognition by the Secretary, Secondary Education Council on 1-11-1961 and got full recognition from the State Government on 1-11-1962 and the petitioners service was approved with retrospective effect from 1 -11-1957. The petitioner worked in the School-1 till 31-12-1957. Thereafter, he joined as Headmaster in School-2 which was a proposed High School at that time. This School-2 was given permission for establishment on 24-11-1973 and got recognition on 31-1-1980. On 2-10-19 80 this School- 2 was nationalised by the State Government. On 31-12-1994, the petitioner superannuated as Headmaster of School-2. Dispute arose on the matter of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner as his services in School-1 were not taken into consideration. The petitioner joined as Headmaster in School-2 on 1-1-1971. This School-2 was given permission for establishment on 24-11-1973. So, there was a gap in regular-service of the petitioner from 1-1-1971 to 24-11-1973 for more than two years and ten months. 5. The petitioners contention appears to be that he was granted leave without pay from 1-1 -1971 to 31-12-1972 in School-1 and, thus, there is a gap of only ten months and twenty-three days. From Annexure-8 to the petition, it appears that two years relaxation in service has been given for fixation of pension and since the period of gap is less than one year, the petitioner is fully entitled for addition of his services while working in School-1. In that view, the order of the Respondents in disallowing his claim is illegal and unjustified. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from Annexure-2 to the petition it will appear that the School-2 got permission for establishment in the year 1973, more specifically on 24-11-1973. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined this School-2 from 1-1-1971 and he was on leave without pay from 1-1-1971 to 31-12-1972 in School-1. It is further submitted that from Annexure-7/A, it is apparent that the service of a teacher has to be counted from the date the School was granted recognition (Memo No. 25511-710 dated 12-8-1978). In that view of the matter, the service of the petitioner for pension and retiral benefits has to be considered from 24-11-1973 when the School-2 got permission for its establishment. In that view of the matter, the service of the petitioner for pension and retiral benefits has to be considered from 24-11-1973 when the School-2 got permission for its establishment. The service of the petitioner will show that he was in continued service and there is only ten months and twenty- three days break in his service. Thus, on the basis of Circular dated 15-2-1982, Clause II &V (Annexure-8) and in Clause IV of Resolution No. 3014 dated 31-7-1980 and Sec. 150 of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no break in his service. In this view of the matter also, the petitioner is entitled for calculation of the period of his service from 1-11-1957 for the purpose of pension, etc. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the subsequent amendment of Circular No. 581 dated 15-1-1982 (Annexure-8) by Circular No. 636 dated 18-7-1992 is not retrospective and hence it cannot affect the case of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the main point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for counting of two years gap in between his earlier service and the last one and whether the counting will be added in the processes for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Admittedly, School-2 was granted opening permission on 24-11-1973. The petitioner joined this School No. 2 on 1-1-1971 but he was granted leave in his earlier School-! from 1-1-1971 to 31-12-1972. Thus, actually the gap is only ten months and twenty-three days, as his Service in school continued till 31-12-72. 8. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that admittedly School-2 was recognised on 30-1-1980 (Annexure-10). The petitioner worked in the said School from 1-1-1971 to 31-1-1980 while the School was not recognised and, thus, the period of service of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for the aforesaid period. It is further submitted that School-2 was taken over by the State Government on 2-10-1980 (Annexure-10/A) and from that date it became the Government School. 9. The learned Counsel for the State further submitted that in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7379/92, C.W.J.C. No. 1847/93 & C.W.J.C. No. 3024/93, the question of payment of pension after take over the Rajkiya Ayoudha Shiv Kumari Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Begusarai, was under consideration. 9. The learned Counsel for the State further submitted that in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7379/92, C.W.J.C. No. 1847/93 & C.W.J.C. No. 3024/93, the question of payment of pension after take over the Rajkiya Ayoudha Shiv Kumari Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Begusarai, was under consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases held as follows: In these cases, I find that the College in question has been nationalised under the provisions of the 1947 Act referred to above with effect from 21-5-1977 and most of the petitioners have retired after putting in less than ten years of service under the State Government after nationalisation. As per the Pension Rules, a Government servant is not entitled to get pension and gratuity unless he puts in exact ten years of service of more than that. Since most of the petitioners have not put in ten years service under the State Government after 21-5-1977, in my opinion, they are not entitled to get pension and gratuity. Further, the services rendered by the petitioners under the management of the Institution prior to the nationalisation cannot be treated as the Government Service. 10. The learned Counsel for the State placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of this Court submitted that in this case, pension can be counted only with effect from 2-10-1980, the day the Management of the Institution has been taken over by the State Government. The petitioner will not be entitled for pension and pensionary benefits prior to the service rendered by the petitioner under the Management of the Institution. The learned Counsel for the State, therefore, submitted that the petitioner will not be entitled for counting his earlier service in the School-1 and, thus, a gap between the two services also be not bridged. 11. The learned Counsel for the State, therefore, submitted that the pension of the petitioner has been properly calculated and even if it is accepted that the Circular dated 18-7-1992 (Annexure-2) has no retrospective effect, the case of the petitioner does not improve. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court is not applicable in this case and the petitioner is entitled for pension from the year 1957 when he was initially appointed in School-1. 13. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court is not applicable in this case and the petitioner is entitled for pension from the year 1957 when he was initially appointed in School-1. 13. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the parties and the facts of the case, it appears that permanent recognition to School-2 was granted on 1-1-1980 and the School was taken over by the State Government on 2-10-1980. In that view, the decision as aforesaid on which the State has placed reliance appears to be fully applicable to the present case also. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any decision in support of his contention. 14. On perusal of Annexure-2 to the petition, the order which was passed by the State Government after the subsequent representation of the petitioner on the basis of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2691/ 96(R), it appears that orders was passed mainly on the basis of the Circular dated 18-7-1992. But the order finds support from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as referred to above with the exception that it should have been from 2-10-1980, the day the Management of the School was taken by the State Government. 15. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.