Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed by Patna University Retired Teachers Association and one of its member of the Executive Committee, who is also retired Professor. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties for quite some time, this Court finds that the real grievance of the petitioners is on account of non-application of Rule 16 of the amended Patna University Retirement Benefit Statutes vide Governors Secretariat, Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna, letter No. BSU/52/80/GS(l)2158 dated 25th November, 1982. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite the said provision; teachers of the University, who retired prior to 1.1.1996 have been arbitrarily kept denied of the benefit of revision of pension/family pension pursuant to Rules 16 & 28 (renumbered as Rule 27) of the amended Statute, which provides for change as per the rates applicable to Government employees. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University as well as on behalf of State Government. Learned counsel for the Respondents cannot dispute and have not disputed that the teachers retired/died prior to 1.1.1996 are entitled for the benefit of revision of pension/family pension in the light of the said provision. In fact, it is admitted by them that they are entitled for the said benefit of revision of pension/family pension. According to the learned counsel for the University, the University after making calculation sent requisition to the State Government for release of fund long back on 22.12.2003. Learned counsel for the State with reference to paragraph 7, 8 & 9 of the counter affidavit has contended that the rates have to be fixed by the State Government for which the Government has taken initiative to decide as a matter of policy and it will take some time to finalise the same. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the University on the basis of their calculation sent the requisition, but, it has been contended that since as a matter of policy a decision is to be taken by the Government, the Government has not been able to release fund. Learned counsel for the University also submitted that in response to the said resolution the Government vide letter no. 213 dated 9th February, 2004 informed the University that the Government is to take a policy decision regarding revision of pension only whereafter the fund can be released. 5. Learned counsel for the University also submitted that in response to the said resolution the Government vide letter no. 213 dated 9th February, 2004 informed the University that the Government is to take a policy decision regarding revision of pension only whereafter the fund can be released. 5. I am unable to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the State. As per the provision contained in Rule 16 & 28 (renumbered as 27) rate of pension/family pension as also relief in Pension under the Bihar (Govt.) Pension Rules, are equally applicable to the University employees. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the State that the rates with respect to the University teachers are to be decided by the Government and for which any policy decision is required to be taken by the State Government. The Statute itself is very clear as to how the revision of pension/family pension are to be applied in the case of teachers of the University. In fact, by virtue of the said provision the Respondents are simply required to do calculation work pursuant to the revision of pension/family pension under Bihar (Government) Pension Rules applicable in the case of Government servant. For example if a University teacher on 1.1.1996 was receiving Rs. 2000/- as pension/family pension the revision of similar pension/family pension in the case of Government servant is to be applied in their case also, and, accordingly, their pension/family pension are to be paid, which in computer age should not take more than a week, as the claim relates with respect to only 246 teachers as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to this Court. It is really unfortunate that the Government has arbitrarily kept denied benefit of revision of pension/family pension to the teachers on such flimsy ground and has taken lame excuse, which is not at all tenable. In fact, on receipt of the requisition from the University, the State authorities were simply required to check as to whether fixation done by the University is correct or not and if there was any error the State authorities should have pointed out to the University by responding promptly. In fact, on receipt of the requisition from the University, the State authorities were simply required to check as to whether fixation done by the University is correct or not and if there was any error the State authorities should have pointed out to the University by responding promptly. But, it is now more than six months have elapsed, yet the Government instead of doing that has taken the aforementioned lame excuse before this Court, which shows gross callousness on the part of the State authorities. 6. In the facts and circumstances, writ application is, thus, allowed. The Respondent-State of Bihar and its Secretary, Higher Education are directed to ensure completion of calculation/fixation of pension/family pension of teachers of Patna University retired prior to 1.1.1996 pursuant to the revision of pension/family pension in the case of Government servant with effect from 1.1.1996 and release the fund for the same to the University within two weeks, failing which the Secretary, Higher Education shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket and the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for initiating appropriate action against the erring authority.