Judgment 1. This is a very important matter. If it were not so, the Court would not have recorded its order of 26 April, 2004. The Court had highlighted some aspects which engaged the Patna High Court particularly of dues which are due to retiring government employees. The Court felt that somewhere down the line the government of Bihar forgot that there is a Pensions Act, 1871. Therefore, a government servant who has seen continuous service virtually has a birth right to claim pension from the State. 2. Government service is a public service. The Bihar Pension Rules as had been framed initially under the Government of India Act, 1935 and even the last publication before the year of the Republic, dated 10 December, 1949, did acknowledge that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity qualifies for pension and in individual cases service rendered by a government servant was meant to count for pension. 3. The Rules will then have to be seen as they originally stood because the books which are in use today, do use the expression "Provincial Government". These are bazar publications. Provincial Government itself implies that the legislation must have been under the Government of India Act, 1935. 4. Thus, equitably no law unsuits a non-gazetted employee should he discharge continuous service to be able to claim his pension from the State. 5. Rule 59 as it occurs in a government publication of 1960, The Bihar Pension Rules corrected up to 30 May, 1959 published in 1960 is reproduced : "59. The Provincial Government may, however, in the case of service paid from general revenues, even though either or both of conditions (1) and (2) are not fulfilled (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension; (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in each case, direct that service rendered by a Government servant shall count for pension." 6. This is a matter which is unnecessarily being dragged in the Secretariat only because forty five years ago the cult of incorporating government companies and State Public Sector Undertakings had not smitten the government of Bihar. Today, the affairs of government companies and the State Public Sector Undertakings is a mess of its own kind. This is a matter which is unnecessarily being dragged in the Secretariat only because forty five years ago the cult of incorporating government companies and State Public Sector Undertakings had not smitten the government of Bihar. Today, the affairs of government companies and the State Public Sector Undertakings is a mess of its own kind. It also engages the attention of the Supreme Court on the retiral benefits or arrears of pay which have not been made because the corpus of these government companies or the State corporations has disappeared without accountability. However, that is another matter. 7. Working in a government company and/or a State Public Sector Undertaking is a public service. In the present case, the recruitment was made in 1959. Subsequently, the appellant Nanhku Prasad Singh was transferred in 1963 to Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Limited. He retired in 1999. He discharged forty years of service. Today he is being told that he is not entitled to pension. It is very easy to fell a petty official that his pension has disappeared whatever may be the reason. The explanation must meet the requirement of law. 8. Before the learned Judge, in the writ petition, the defence was, to the effect, that the petitioner must make out a prima facie case that he has been made permanent. This obligation may not be put on the petitioner unless he has suppressed any material. This is an obligation of his employer to place his status if he desires to deny rightful due to a person in the appellants position. 9. Matters like this waste the time of the High Court because records are suppressed. On record is a clarification which was issued by the government on 12 August, 1969 that should an employee discharge fifteen years of continuous service, he will qualify for pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules. This was suppressed by the State. 10. The clarification which was issued by the State of Bihar dated 12 August, 1969 vide memo no. Pen 1024/69/11779F, dated 12.8.1969 is reproduced : "The State Government after careful consideration have, therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the temporary or officiating Government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than 15 years, it will be considered as pensionable under rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules." 11. Pen 1024/69/11779F, dated 12.8.1969 is reproduced : "The State Government after careful consideration have, therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the temporary or officiating Government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than 15 years, it will be considered as pensionable under rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules." 11. In the circumstances, the issue is not that the petitioner appellant must be first certified as a permanent employee because after discharge of fifteen years of service he is entitled to pension. The State in any case has accepted that he must first show his permanent status. Getting him out of a government department and putting him inside a Public Sector Undertaking is not the fault of the employee. 12. In so far as he is concerned, he has discharged continuous public service. Even when a government servant works for one department and another statutory body like an University, the aggregate of public service is counted for the purpose of the pension. The law is not different for this appellant. 13. The State government should not borrow troubles. 14. This is a clear-cut case where the employee having discharged forty years of service is entitled to receive the status that even in temporary service having done fifteen years of it, he is entitled to pension. 15. Thus, with these aspects not noticed in the judgment of the learned Judge on the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2003) the order dated 29 April, 2003 suffers from a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. 16. The State of Bihar is under a direction to process the pension of the appellant forthwith within six weeks and deliver it to him by presenting a pension payment order. For the delayed pension the Supreme Court had given a direction in re State of Kerala and Ors. vs. M. Padmanadhan Nair 1985 1 SCC 429 that the incumbent will be entitled to 12 per cent interest. The employee retired in 1999. If the pension had been given to him within time he would have deposited it under the Scheme "Deposit Schemes for Retiring Government Employees, 1989 and Deposit Scheme for Retiring Employees of Public Sector Companies, 1991." 17. In the circumstances, effective 1999 as of date whatever may have been the interest in the schemes the appellant will be entitled to it. In the circumstances, effective 1999 as of date whatever may have been the interest in the schemes the appellant will be entitled to it. 18. The order dated 29 April, 2003 on C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2003 is set aside. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations/directions.