R. H. ZAIDI, R. P. NIGAM, JJ. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner mainly prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the petitioner the amount of pension giving him the benefit of his 22 years past service with the State Government in accordance with Fundamental Rule 14 (a)contained in Financial Hand Book-11 (Part TT to IV ). Prayer for a direction to the respondents to take decision on the representations filed by the petitioner, has also been made. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, are that the petitioners while he was working on the post of Superintendent. Physical Education, Government Training colleges, U. P. . in the Education Department. Government of U. P. . was appointed as lecturer in the Department of Physical Education in Banaras Hindu University in the year 1965 under the order of Government of U. P. dated 23. 7. 1965. By the time he was transferred to Banaras Hindu university-petitioner already put in 22 years continuous service on the aforesaid post of superintendent Physical Education. In compliance with the order dated 23. 7. 1965. petitioner joined Banaras Hindu University on 24. 7. 1965. In the University, the petitioner was given appointment on the probation for 2 years w. e. f. 30. 6. 1962 by order dated 26. 8. 1967. It has been stated that the petitioner was given to understand by respondent No. 3 the Director of Education. U. P. . Allahabad, that for the purposes of fixation of pension and gratuity, his 22 years past services rendered in U. P. Education Department shall be counted if he comes back to his parent department or stays in the University after resigning from the post of Superintendent Physical education, Government Training Colleges, U. P. On the assurance given by respondent No. 3. the petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Superintendent, Physical Education. Government Training College, U. P. . which was accepted w. e. f. 24. 7. 1966 vide notification dated 18. 1. 1968. On attaining the age of retirement, petition retired from service on 30. 4. 1982 about which he intimated to respondent No. 1. The petitioner, thereafter made applications and representations to the respondent Nos. Government Training College, U. P. . which was accepted w. e. f. 24. 7. 1966 vide notification dated 18. 1. 1968. On attaining the age of retirement, petition retired from service on 30. 4. 1982 about which he intimated to respondent No. 1. The petitioner, thereafter made applications and representations to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for fixation of his pension taking into consideration his 22 years service rendered in the Education Department in accordance with law but no heed was paid to his applications and representations by the respondents. He, therefore, had no option but to file the present petition. ( 3 ) WHILE entertaining the writ petition on 28. 3. 1991, this Court directed the opposite parties to consider and dispose of representations made by the petitioner. The representation filed by the petitioner was thereafter considered and rejected by Additional Director of Education by order dated 25. 9. 1991. a copy of which is contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition, holding that on submission of resignation by the petitioner, his lien on the post of Superintendent Physical education Government Training College, U. P. , came to an end, he was, therefore, legally not entitled to take benefit of his 22 years service rendered In the Education Department of the government of U. P. The validity of the said order had also been challenged by the petitioner by means of an amendment application which was allowed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of opposite parties, a counter-affidavit has been filed controverting the facts stated in the writ petition. However, in the said affidavit, it has not been disputed that the petitioner rendered 22 years services as Superintendent. Physical Education Government Training colleges, U. P. and thereafter, he was sent/transferred to Banaras Hindu University as lecturer in physical Education. vide order dated 23. 7. 1965. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner joined the said post in the University. On behalf of respondents, it has been asserted that the petitioner having tendered his resignation from the post of Superintendent, Physical Education, his lien on the aforesaid post on the acceptance of resignation, came to an end. Therefore, aforesaid services rendered by the petitioner, could not be counted for the purposes of fixation of his pension and other pensionary benefits. On behalf of respondents, it has been asserted that the petitioner having tendered his resignation from the post of Superintendent, Physical Education, his lien on the aforesaid post on the acceptance of resignation, came to an end. Therefore, aforesaid services rendered by the petitioner, could not be counted for the purposes of fixation of his pension and other pensionary benefits. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rules, petitioner was entitled to benefit of 22 years services rendered in the Educational Department. Government of U. P. The view taken to the contrary by the respondents, is manifestly erroneous and illegal. It was urged that even after submission of resignation by the petitioner, the lien of the petitioner cannot be forfeited. The petitioner was fully entitled to get full benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as the resignation submitted by him was not based on any personal reason or domestic ground. The respondents were, therefore, liable to be directed to count the period from 7. 7. 1943 to 23. 7. 1965 towards service and they were also liable to be directed to pay the amount of pension with 12% interest from 30. 4. 1982 the date on which the petitioner retired from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon certain decisions of the Apex court and this Court which will be noted while dealing the question in controversy. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel reiterated and reasserted the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. It was urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the lien of the petitioner, on submission of resignation by him, came to an end and thereafter, he was not entitled to the benefit of his 22 years service in the Education Department of Government of U. P. for calculating the pension. It was urged that representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the competent authority. ( 7 ) WE have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. It was urged that representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the competent authority. ( 7 ) WE have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that petitioner has rendered 22 years continuous service in the Education department of Government of Uttar Pradesh before he was transferred by Government Order dated 23. 7. 1965 to Banaras Hindu University where he had joined as lecturer in the Department of Physical Education. Petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Superintendent, physical Education, Government Training College, U. P. on the assurance given to him by the director of Education that his 22 years service shall be counted towards his service. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 14a (a) of financial Handbook-II (Part II to IV) as well as Chapter 16 of Civil Service Regulations paragraph 367 are attracted in the present case which are quoted below : "a Government servants lien on a post cannot in any circumstance be terminated or forfeited even with his consent or as result of conditional resignation beyond his control, if the result will be to leave him without any benefit of pension or pens ion ary rights. " Civil Service Regulations Para 377 (6) :"a Government servant is fully entitled to get full benefit of pension and its allied benefits notwithstanding that he submitted resignation. The only barrier is that the resignation should not be based on personal reasons or domestic grounds. " ( 9 ) A reading of aforesaid rule and regulation reveals that the Hen of a Government servant cannot in any circumstances be terminated or forfeited even with his consent or as a result of conditional resignation beyond his control, if the result will be to leave him without any benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. It has been provided that a Government servant is fully entitled to get full benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits notwithstanding that he submitted resignation, subject to only the resignation based on personal reasons and domestic grounds. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents to the contrary cannot be accepted. It has been provided that a Government servant is fully entitled to get full benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits notwithstanding that he submitted resignation, subject to only the resignation based on personal reasons and domestic grounds. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents to the contrary cannot be accepted. The petitioner inspite of the fact that he has tendered his resignation, may on assurance given by the director of Education, U. P. , Allahabad, in view of the aforesaid rule and regulation that his right to receive pension and other pensionary benefits shall not be affected adversely. It may be noted that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not based on personal reasons or domestic grounds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the 22 years service rendered by him in the Education Department of State of U. P. A reference at this juncture may also be given to the decision of this Court in Jagat Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 (2) ESC 197 (All), wherein Division Bench of this Court referred to the government Order dated 20. 8. 1984 and ruled that the said Government Order was applicable in the case and that the State of U. P. was mentioned at SI. No. (VIII ). At the bottom of it, it is mentioned that the order shall be extended to the employees of other State Governments and when they agree to similar reciprocal arrangements. It is not the case of the State, it has not accepted the policy laid down in the Central Government Orders dated 29. 8. 1984 and 7. 2. 1988. In view of this policy. the State Government ts liable to make one time payment of pensionary benefits which accrued to the petitioner on the basis of service rendered by him to the State governments. The denial of liability by the State Government is entirely arbitrary. ( 10 ) HAVING recorded the aforesaid findings, it was directed in the said writ petition as under : "the writ petition is accordingly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the State governments order referred to in the letter dated 12th December, 1991. issued by the Director of information, U. P. to the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University (Annexure-10 ). A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the State governments order referred to in the letter dated 12th December, 1991. issued by the Director of information, U. P. to the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University (Annexure-10 ). A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the State of U. P. through the ministry of Finance and the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations. U. P. to release the capitalised value of the petitioners pension and gratuity to the Banaras Hindu university with Interest calculated at the rate of 12% from 1. 4. 1989 till the date of payment within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is presented before the secretary. Ministry of Finance. State of U. P. Since the State Government has involved the petitioner in litigation on absolutely untenable grounds, it will pay special costs to the petitioner which are assessed at Rs. 500. 00 (Rupees Five hundred ). These costs may be recovered by the petitioner either from respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2. " ( 11 ) THE decision in the Jagat Prakash Chaturvedis case, (supra) was relied upon In the subsequent decisions of this Court. A reference in this regard may be made to (1) Dr. Om prakash Mathur v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31960 of 1994. decided on 1. 11. 1996 ; (2) Dr. Surendra Mohan Marwah v. State of V. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31961 of 1994, decided on 9. 9. 1996 and (3) ; Mrs. Sudha Kumari Modwel v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 3002 of 1996. decided on 23. 2. 1999. Against the Judgment and order passed in Sudha Kumari Modwel. (supra) petltion (s) special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 11369 of 1999 was filed in the Supreme Court. The said special leave petition was dismissed by Supreme Court by Judgment and order dated 19. 8. 1999. In the aforesaid cases, it has been ruled, In the similar circumstances as of the present case Government servants was entitled to the benefits of services rendered in the State Government for purpose of counting and payment of pension and other pensionary benefits. The petitioner having retired from service on 30. 4. 8. 1999. In the aforesaid cases, it has been ruled, In the similar circumstances as of the present case Government servants was entitled to the benefits of services rendered in the State Government for purpose of counting and payment of pension and other pensionary benefits. The petitioner having retired from service on 30. 4. 1982 since then he has been struggling for payment of his pension and other pensionary benefits, but of no avail. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed, order dated 25. 9. 1991 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner. Is hereby quashed. Respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the petitioner pension. gratuity and other pensionary benefits after giving him benefit of his services with effect from 7. 7. 1943 to 23. 7. 1965 with other consequential benefits and interest calculated at the rate of 12% from 30. 4. 1982 on which date the petitioner retired from service till the date of making payment of the aforesaid amount, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Principal Secretary, Education Department, U. P. ( 13 ) NO orders as to costs. .