ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 1352 of 1997 (Ram Sewak v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and another). 2. A short point is involved in this petition whether the petitioner's services rendered as Panchayat Secretary can be calculated towards his qualifying service for the grant of pension. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by the Department of Panchayats in Gram Panchayat Barroua Kulaith, Gwalior. Petitioner was transferred from one Panchayat to another by the Department of Panchayats during the tenure of his service. His last posting was at Gram Panchayat, Girvai. Under the scheme of the State Government, surrounding villages of Municipal Corporation area were merged in the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Vide order dated 14.7.1981 on merger of Gram Panchayats, services of Panchayat Secretaries in the pay-scale of Rs. 155-252 were transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior on the same pay-scale. All Panchayat secretaries were relieved for joining Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Vide order Annexure P-3 it is mentioned that petitioner's services were merged in the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1995. However, his period of service is being counted from the date his services were merged in the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for counting of service for payment of pension from the date he joined as Panchayat Secretary under the Panchayats Department. Earlier service rendered by the petitioner should be counted for grant of pension. It is contended by the petitioner that he had requested the authorities during service that his past period of service should be counted for the purpose of seniority, promotion and fixation of pay, but his representation was not considered. Even after retirement, the respondents-Corporation has not fixed the salary of the petitioner properly and consequently pension payable to the petitioner. The respondents have ignored the previous service of the petitioner rendered with the Panchayat Department, for payment of pension and/or fixation of pension according to settlement of service. The benefits were given to the petitioner from the year 1981, when the petitioner joined the services of the Corporation. 5. Short point is involved whether previous service rendered by the petitioner can be counted for calculation of pension. 6. It may be mentioned here that no assistance was rendered by the Municipal Corporation in determining the issue. The benefits were given to the petitioner from the year 1981, when the petitioner joined the services of the Corporation. 5. Short point is involved whether previous service rendered by the petitioner can be counted for calculation of pension. 6. It may be mentioned here that no assistance was rendered by the Municipal Corporation in determining the issue. Respondents have not even cared to file return after the petition was filed in the year 1997 and notices were issued on 9.9.1997. Fifteen days' time was sought by Shri S.G. Chitnis, Advocate appearing for the Corporation to file return on 16.1.1998. But the Municipal Corporation has not filed its return. Then on 23.11.2000 further time was sought by the counsel for Municipal Corporation to file return. On 8.12.2000, this Court directed that the return be filed within two weeks and the case was directed to be listed after two weeks for final hearing. The case was listed on 25.1.2001. On that date arguments were heard and counsel for Municipal Corporation sought time to explain the rules for counting the service. The case was partly heard. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 30.1.2001, counsel for Municipal Corporation did not appear in Court, though the case was part heard and he had not assisted the Court. Thus the Municipal Corporation has not come forward with its case and showed its intention of non-cooperation and has not even cared to file its return in past four years. The Court has no option but to hear the arguments and close the case. It may be presumed that the respondents are not in a position to oppose the contention of the petitioner. 7. On perusal of the documents Annexures P-2 and P-3 it is clear that the services of petitioner were transferred to Municipal Corporation, Gwalior on the merger of Gram Panchayat into Municipal Corporation. Petitioner was not appointed afresh in the Municipal Corporation. No rule or notification is shown to the contrary that petitioner's previous services should not be counted towards qualifying service. 8. Some of the Block Level Extension Officers whose services were transferred to Sales Tax Department in Madhya Pradesh was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Devdutta v. State of M.P. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 553]. In this case, certain Block Level Extension Officers were declared surplus and absorbed as Sales Tax Inspectors between 13.2.1967 to 28.9.1970. 8. Some of the Block Level Extension Officers whose services were transferred to Sales Tax Department in Madhya Pradesh was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Devdutta v. State of M.P. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 553]. In this case, certain Block Level Extension Officers were declared surplus and absorbed as Sales Tax Inspectors between 13.2.1967 to 28.9.1970. The Government has issued a notification to strike a balance between interests of two categories of employees and it was decided by the Government to treat absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors from 31.3.1967 and to confer seniority from that date. The existing Inspectors were confirmed during the period 1.11.1956 to 5.10.1968. The absorbed Inspectors had made a grievance that they should be given seniority taking into consideration the service rendered by them before being declared surplus whereas existing Inspectors contended that services rendered by them from the date of their appointment till the date of confirmation could not be ignored for seniority. The Supreme Court upheld that stand of the Government so far as absorbed Inspectors were concerned but decided against the Government on the question of fixation of seniority of existing Inspectors from the date of confirmation. It was held that seniority of existing Inspectors cannot be fixed from the date of confirmation because ignoring service from date of appointment till confirmation will be against the principles laid down in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ]. It was held that benefit of service for the purposes of seniority of the absorbed employees from the date of confirmation i.e. 31.3.1967 cannot be denied. It was further held that these officers cannot be granted benefit of entire service rendered in parent department because this will adversely affect the existing Inspectors including those who had already been promoted as Assistant Sales Tax Officers even prior to 22.5.1967. Thus, for the purposes of seniority it was held that direct recruits or persons holding the post in the department will have a right of seniority over absorbed employees. 9. But so far as the question of counting the previous service is concerned, in another case of S.I. Roop Lal and another v. Lt. Thus, for the purposes of seniority it was held that direct recruits or persons holding the post in the department will have a right of seniority over absorbed employees. 9. But so far as the question of counting the previous service is concerned, in another case of S.I. Roop Lal and another v. Lt. Governor, through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others [JT 1999 (9) SC 597], a Sub-Inspector who was appointed as such in the Border Security Force when transferred on deputation to Delhi Police and on being permanently absorbed, whether he is entitled to count his previous service, the Apex Court held that though they may have been absorbed later, but their previous service should be counted. In para 24 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that the role played by the respondents in the litigation is far from satisfactory. The State should only play role of an impartial employer in the inter se disputes between the employees. The State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. The State should act as a model employer and behave in impartial manner. 10. It is informed that for the purposes of pension, the Corporation is governed by M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules relates to effect of interruption in service. It is provided that any interruption in the service of a Government servant entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases – (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx (e) abolition of office or loss of appointment owing to reduction of establishment or due to transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under• Government control under the orders of the competent authority. (f) joining time while on transfer from one post to another. Thus from perusal of rule 27, it cannot be deemed that there was any interruption in the service of petitioner. 11. Rule 26.of the Pension Rules relates to forfeiture of service on resignation. It provides that resignation from a service or post entails for feiture of past service. 12. In the present case, petitioner's services have been merged in the Corporation. There is no question of forfeiture of previous service of petitioner. The petitioner has not resigned from the previous service and joined the present service. It provides that resignation from a service or post entails for feiture of past service. 12. In the present case, petitioner's services have been merged in the Corporation. There is no question of forfeiture of previous service of petitioner. The petitioner has not resigned from the previous service and joined the present service. Therefore, his previous service should be counted for calculating his pension. 13. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner treating the services of the petitioner with effect from 28.2.1960 till the date of his superannuation. Pension of the petitioner be fixed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The respondents are also directed to pay cost to the petitioner which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand).