Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure-4 issued by the Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Bihar rejecting the application of the petitioner to condone the break in service during the period 9-8-1955 to 30-11-1955, and further petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the Respondents-authorities to re-fix his pension after condoning the said period of break of 114 days and to make payment of revised pension with effect from the date of super-annuation till date. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that on 26-1-1950, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Council. He was confirmed and made permanent on the post of Assistant on 29-12-1952 and worked in the Council till 8-8-1955. Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the University service on 9-8-1955 and worked there for 114 days, i.e. up to 30-11-1955, whereafter he again joined in the Government Department on the post of District Public Relation Officer on 1-12-1955 and ultimately, superannuated from Government Service on 30th September, 1986. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar and Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department-Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that due to the resignation from service of Bihar Legislative Council, the petitioner is not entitled for counting of previous service i.e. prior to his resignation. It is further stated that according to the existing Rules and circulars, the petitioner is not entitled for counting his service prior to his resignation. In Paragraph 12, it is stated that for the services rendered by the petitioner in the Department, pensionary benefits have already been sanctioned and in absence of valid service the petitioner is not entitled to full pension. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the resignation for taking up another appointment was approved by the appointing authority, it is not a resignation of the public service and the period rendered counts in service. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the resignation for taking up another appointment was approved by the appointing authority, it is not a resignation of the public service and the period rendered counts in service. In support of this, he placed reliance on Rules 101(b) and 105 of the Bihar Pension Rules, Rule 101(b) provides that resignation of an appointment with the approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service, and Rule 105 provides that subject to any rules which the Provincial Government may prescribe and upon such conditions as it may think fit in each case to impose the authority competent to fill the appointment held by a Government Servant at the time condonation is applied for, where he to vacate the appointment, may, condone all interruption in his service. 5. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the said provisions are at all applicable to the present case. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 101 only applies where there is resignation of an appointment with the approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment, service in which counts, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show firstly that there was any approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment and secondly that the service rendered in the University counts as service in the State Government. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, with reference to the statements made in paragraph 23 of the writ petition submitted that the petitioner did not resign from the post of Assistant in the Legislative Council rather he did it at the instance and on the advice of the Secretary of the Council, who had difficulty in relieving the petitioner in view of the provisions 71 (kh) of the Bihar Service Code. In this regard, he placed reliance on Annexure-5, in which it is mentioned that on selection the petitioner expressed desire to join the University service and as per the prevailing Rule he under compelling circumstances joined the University service after resigning from his post. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court falls to appreciate as to how the petitioner can get the benefit of Rule 101(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 105, in my opinion, has no application to the present case at all. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court falls to appreciate as to how the petitioner can get the benefit of Rule 101(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 105, in my opinion, has no application to the present case at all. The said provision also applies where the appointment held by a Government servant is filled at the time of condonation is applied for, where he to vacate the appointment and under such circumstances the interruptions in his service can be condoned subject to the conditions mentioned in the State Governments decision vide Memo No. Pen-1040/69/ 8990 dated 13-11-1969. 8. This Court, thus, does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is summarily dismissed.