Judgment 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the letter of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, contained in Annexure-5, whereby the authority for payment of his pension @ Rs.426/per month with effect from 1.8.1994 and a sum of Rs.5070/- as death-cum-retirement gratuity have been issued and further in the event of his death payment of family pension @ 375/- to his wife til! her death or remarriage whichever is earlier has been authorised. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, he claims to be entitled to receive pension and arrears of pension with effect from December, 1975 after calculating the basic revised pay of the petitioner payable and then to pay revised pension and arrears of pension with compound interest. In the alternative it is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to get pension and arrears of pensi6n with effect from 1.8.94 on the revised scale of pay as on 31.7.1994, fixing his pay in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade scale. It is also claimed that the petitioner is entitled for arrears, G.P.F., gratuity as well as LLC. benefit with compound statutory interest from December, 1975. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as sub-overseer on 7th November, 1955 in Kosi Project and worked till his promotion as Overseer with effect from 6.12.1971 vide Chief Engineer (Gandak) Memo No. 1999 dated 16.4.1973. After the said promotion he joined under Executive Engineer, Drainage Investigation Circle No. 2, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur on 14.5.73. On 5.12.1974 he proceeded on leave due to illness and death of his father. It is claimed that subsequently he extended his leave due to illness and other domestic problem and returned back to his duty on 20.11.1979, but his joining was not accepted, despite his repeated attempt. On attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.7.1994, and claims that he became entitled to get post-retirement benefit with effect from 1.8.1994 as his service was never terminated nor any departmental enquiry was initiated. On attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.7.1994, and claims that he became entitled to get post-retirement benefit with effect from 1.8.1994 as his service was never terminated nor any departmental enquiry was initiated. In 1995 petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 9050 of 1995 for payment of post-retirement benefits and this Court vide order dated 2.9.1996, contained in Annexure-1/1, having noticed the fact that the Respondents never issued any order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised absence held that the Respondents are duty bound to decide as to how the period from 5.12.1974 till the date of his superannuation be counted. Accordingly this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner and pay the same, whereafter the impugned authority slip has been issued. 4. A counter affidavit has been fried on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to 7 as well as on behalf of District Provident Fund Officer, Muzaffarpur-Respondent no.9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents-2 to 7, it is stated that as per direction of this Court given in C.W.J.C. No. 9050 of 1995, the Department passed reasoned order vide Memo no. 161 dated 22.1.1998 and Memo No. 164 dated 22.1.1998 and in the light of the said letters all the grievances of the petitioner was redressed and accordingly the service book of the writ petitioner was constructed. Earned leave, gratuity was sanctioned and as soon as the pension paper of the writ petitioner was received, it was sent to the Accountant General and the Accountant General issued authority slip (Annexure-5). It is stated that in view of the provisions, contained in Section 182 of the Bihar Service Code, one year leave was granted and pension has been granted on the basis of the period rendered on duty with leave for the said period. In paragraph 14, it is stated that after granting leave for one year in accordance with law the rest period up to the date of superannuation was counted notionally, and accordingly pension was finalised by Accountant General, Bihar. Patna in accordance with Rules. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, It is stated that after receipt of the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F., calculation sheet was prepared and proper scrutiny was made. Patna in accordance with Rules. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, It is stated that after receipt of the application for final withdrawal of G.P.F., calculation sheet was prepared and proper scrutiny was made. Finally an authority bearing no. 007771 dated 11.4.98 for Rs.7,927.00 was prepared in favour of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources and Investigation Department, Muzaffarpur and was sent to him for encashment and payment to the petitioner. According to him no amount of G.P.F. in respect of the petitioner is outstanding in his office. 5. Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondents have wrongly denied the pension from the due date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondents have calculated the pension benefits on the basis of salary drawn by the petitioner on 4.12.1974 and his service for the subsequent period till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1994 have not been taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Thus, according to him the petitioner, in fact, has been treated to have superannuated from 4.12.1974 despite the order contained in letter no. 164 dated 22.1.1998 (Annexure- 3), whereby after making adjustment of the leave admissible rest of the period though have been counted for the purpose of commutation of pension but the said commutation has not been made on the basis of the revised pay. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in fact commutation of pensionary benefits of the petitioner has been made on the basis of last 10 months salary drawn by him, as is admissible in law. 7. I find substance in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. It is not in dispute that the period 4.12.1974 to 19.8.1975 only have been treated to be on leave on the basis of total leave earned by him. In so far as the period from 20.8.1975 to 6.11.1975 the same has been treated to be extraordinary leave wilthout pay and the remaining period of absence of the petitioner obviously was unauthorised, yet because no order of termination was passed the authorities in the light of the earlier aforementioned direction of this Court allowed pensionary benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn by him. In my opinion, the Respondent-authorities have shown leniency in allowing pensionary benefits to the petitioner as no action was taken by them for the petitioners unauthorised absence. It is by now well settled that pensionary benefits have to be calculated on the basis of the last 10 months salary drawn by the. pensioner. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.L.Jain V/s. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 619 (at 621 left hand column). 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and this writ application is, thus, dismissed.