JUDGMENT S.K. SINGH, J.:-AII these four writ petitions have been heard together at the stage of admission because they raise common question of law as regards the liability of the respondent University relating to pension payable to its such retired employees who were earlier in the service of State of Bihar and are in receipt of proportionate pension from the Government of Bihar in terms of Section 39(19) of the Bihar Agricultural University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 161 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. Petitioner were employees of the State Government in the department of Agriculture and when the respondent Rajendra Agricultural University was established in the year 1971 their services along with others were transferred to the respondent University and subsequently their resignations were accepted by the State Government on their being absorbed in the University service. A few years ago during 1990s petitioners retired from service under the University and started getting pension. It appears that on claim being made by similar retire employees a dispute arose whether Government is liable to pay pension and if so, to what extent. The State Government wanted to avoid its liability to pay pension but the dispute was ultimately settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. B.S. Mathur, 1996 (1) PLJR (SC) 69 and it was held on the basis of Section 39 (19) of the Act and Rule 161 of the Rules that the retired employee in such a-case is entitled to the sum total of pay plus pension which would not exceed the substantive pay last drawn by him before he had tendered his resignation and was discharged by the Government. In other words, the proportionate pension of such employee payable by the Government was to be calculated with reference to the last drawn pay at the time of acceptance of his resignation by the Government. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court noted above, the University, which had till then paid higher amounts of pay to the reemployed State Government servants, sought to reduce their pay so as to bring it inconformity with Rule 161 of the Rules. A challenge was made by the affected employees of the University through various writ petitions including CWJC 8532 in the case of S.M. Qamaruzzama Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University. A challenge was made by the affected employees of the University through various writ petitions including CWJC 8532 in the case of S.M. Qamaruzzama Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University. Those writ petitions were decided by the judgment reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 749. Relying upon judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vs. B.S. Mathur, this Court held that Rule 161 applies to such State Government's servants who resigned and joined University service and were absorbed there and therefore, while the amount of proportionate pension is not reduced, the amount of pay and pension together should not exceed the amount of substantive pay last drawn. Hence, this Court allowed the University to fix pension after receiving replies from the concerned employees in accordance with Rule 161 of the Rules but restrained the University from recovering pension already aid erroneously on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Curt in tile case of S.V. Bhima Bhatta Vs. State of Karnatakas, reported in J.T (1996) 2 SC 236. 3. The University has now issued the impugned orders whereby it has reduced the pension which was determined earlier and was paid to the petitioner on the ground that such reduction was required by application Rule 161 of the Rules. 4. On the other hand, on behalf of petitioners it was strongly argued that the respondent University cannot recalculate pension on the basis of average pay of last 10 months of the petitioners which according to the University should have been paid in view of Rule 161 of the Rules. According to petitioners, the University must determine pension on the basis of average pay of last 10 month actually paid because legally it cannot recover the pay actually paid to the retired employees because the payments were made by the University without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. By giving illustration in paragraph 19 of CWJC No. 2015 of 2002 an attempt was made on the part of the petitioners to demonstrate that the respondents have wrongly calculated the amount of pension by deducting the amount of pension payable by the State Government twice. 5. By giving illustration in paragraph 19 of CWJC No. 2015 of 2002 an attempt was made on the part of the petitioners to demonstrate that the respondents have wrongly calculated the amount of pension by deducting the amount of pension payable by the State Government twice. 5. On behalf of the respondent University it was submitted that the calculation of pay in accordance with Rule 161 of the Rules has already been approved by this Court and hence, University is fully justified in calculating pension on the basis of pay legally payable to the reemployed Government servants. In other words, according to University, pensionary benefits must be calculated on the basis of pay lawfully payable and not on the basis of pay which may have been paid erroneously. So far as deduction of the amount of pension being paid by the Government is concerned, it was submitted that Section 39(19) of the Act clearly provides that such employees on being allowed to enter the service of the University shall be considered for compensation/proportionate pension. The word "proportionate pension", according to the university, can only mean the total pension calculated on the basis of last pay legally payable and reduced by the amount of pension which the employee is receiving from the State Government. 6. On considering rival submissions this Court finds that the only issue to be decided in these writ petitions is whether the University can reduce its pensionary liability to a proportionate level by subtracting the pension which the petitioners are receiving from the State Government. The calculation of pension on the basis of pay permitted by Rule 161 of the Rules has already been found lawful in the case of S.M. Qamaruzzama and so far as the above issue relating to proportionate pension is concerned, Section 39(19) of the Act clearly justifies only proportionate pension from the University to such Government servants who have resigned from Government service and entered the service of the University. For ready reference Section 39(19) of the Act is noted hereinbelow: "Such Government servants who choose to resign government service and enter the, Service of the University shall be considered for compensation, proportionate pension, provided that no such compensation, proportionate pension shall be allowed to any employee, who resigns in spite of being required by Government of serve on some other post, under the Government carrying emoluments not less than his pay at the time of such resignation. 7. The aforesaid interpretation is evident from the discussion made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 In the case of State of Bihar Vs. B.S. Mathur (supra). The same conclusions flow on a bare reading of clause 16.1 (b) (iii) of Statutes of the University as contained in Chapter XVI which provides thus: 16.1 (b) (iii) "Permanent Govt. servants as are eligible for Proportionate Pension from Govt. will be allowed on absorption under the University, the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund. Or in lieu therefor Pension if they so chose on the basis of total period of service rendered under the Govt. and the University. The pension to which such employees will be entitled would be the pension that would accrue to then on the basis of the total period of service under the Govt. and the University minus the pension payable by Government." 8. Thus, this Court finds no illegality in the action of the respondent University in re-determining the pension in the case of petitioners and in deciding to pay only proportionate pension after deducting the amount of pension being paid by the State Government. This Court finds no merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed but without costs.