Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents L.N. Mithila University and its officials to pay all the retiral benefits including the gratuity, G.P.F. and leave encashment etc. and start paying pension on prorate basis for the period of service rendered by the petitioner as Lecturer and Reader. 2. In short the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer (History) in G.D. College, Begusarai by the then governing body on 26th August, 1961 when the said College was an affiliated unit of erstwhile Bhagalpur University and in the year 1972 it became a constituent unit of the said University, Later on creation of L.N. Mithila University the College was brought under the said University. Meanwhile, as claimed by him, he went on one year leave on 1.8.1978 with lien to join Jawaharlal Nehru University (Post Graduate Centre), Imphal, where he was permanently absorbed/confirmed on 31.3.1979 and ultimately retired from there on 31.1.1996. According to the petitioner, despite several efforts made and even direction given by this Court in the writ petition filed by him neither the Principal of G.D. College, Bhagalpur nor the Registrar of L.N. Mithila University sent the amount deducted under G.P.R, Leave, Insurance etc. to Manipur University and therefore, his 17 years of service in L.N. Mithila University could not be linked with the services rendered under Manipur University and thus, it is contended that the respondent Mithila University is legally bound to grant pension and other retiral benefits to him for 17 years of service which is more than the qualifying period of service. According to the petitioner, Manipur University fixed his pension on the basis of service rendered under them but the service rendered under L.N. Mithila University nothing has been paid. It is claimed that while in service under L.N. Mithila University the petitioner opted for pension scheme and there had been deduction from the salary of the petitioner under that head. 3. It is claimed that while in service under L.N. Mithila University the petitioner opted for pension scheme and there had been deduction from the salary of the petitioner under that head. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 16 of the Statutes for the grant of retirement benefits to employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/Magadh/L.N. Mithila/ K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities an employee eligible for pension if he ceased to be in University service between 1.4.1972 and 31.12.1972 according to the scales given in schedule A (i) and if he ceased to be in University service between 1.1.1973 to 30.3.1979 then as per schedule A (ii) and those ceased to be in University service from 31.3.1979 onwards are eligible for pension in the scales given in schedule A(iii) and any further change in the rate of pension as also relied in pension under the Bihar (Government), Pension Rules are equally applicable to the University employees. Learned counsel contended that since the petitioner undisputedly ceased to be in the University service after termination of lien by permanent absorption in Manipur University on 31.31979 he is entitled for pension in the scale given in schedule A(iii). Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 148 . In my opinion, the decision in the case of Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no application to the facts of the present has got no application to the facts of the present case. There is no provision in the Statute like the provisions of the Scheme relied upon by the Apex Court in the said case. 4. Mr. Navniti Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, submitted that Clause 16 has got no application in the case of the petitioner as it deals with an employee falling under any of the category mentioned in Clause 15 which provides that subjects to the minimum qualifying service an employee shall be eligible for one or other of the pensions referred therein, such as compensation pension, invalid pension, superannuation pension and retiring pension. According to him, the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the said category and as such, Clause 16 has got no application in his case. According to him, the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the said category and as such, Clause 16 has got no application in his case. He further contended that in fact the Statute for grant of retirement benefits itself came into force on 14.11.1980 i.e. after termination of his lien on permanent absorption in Manipur University on 31.3.1979. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the University, he was not even in the service on the date the pension was introduced in the University. 5. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 16 itself provides for grant of pension even in the case of those who ceased to be in University service between 1.4.1972 up to the date when the Statutes for grant of retirement benefits came into force on 14.11.1980. 6. I find substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be true that the Statute came into force on 14.11.1980 but by virtue of provisions in Clause 16 it has been made applicable even with respect to an employee eligible for pension under any of the categories referred to in Clause 15, of course according to the scales given in different schedule for those who ceased to be in University service between 1.4.1972 to 31.121972, 1.1.173 and 30.3.1979 and from 31.3.1979 on wards but the said benefit has been given only to those who fall in one of the categories mentioned in Clause 15. Bare reading of Clause 15 shows that the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories mentioned therein, such as compensation pension, invalid pension, superannuation pension or retiring pension. The petitioner is neither claiming compensation pension which is payable to an employee discharged owing to the abolition of the permanent post or invalid pension which is granted to an employee on retirement from the service of the University for permanent physical or mental disability incapacitating him for further service, if certified by the Medical Board constituted by the Vice Chancellor, it is not the case of the petitioner that he ever retired on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement nor it is his case that he retired in advance of the age of compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Patna/Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which categories are only covered by Clause 16. 7. 7. This Court thus finds substance in the submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the University, that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under Clause 16 as claimed by him. However, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit is also that he has been denied the benefit of 17 years of service in L.N. Mithila University by Manipur University because neither the Principal of the College nor the Registrar of the University sent the amount deducted under G.P.F. head, leave, insurance etc. to Manipur University. In this regard, nothing has been brought on the record nor any rule has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner perusal whereof can show that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of service rendered by him in L.N. Mithila University by Manipur University. Manipur University is not even party nor any relief against Manipur University can be given by this Court in the present writ petition. The writ petition is thus dismissed. 8. However, in view of nature of the aforesaid grievance raised by the petitioner this Court directs the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar (Respondents No. 1 and 2) to ensure compliance of earlier order of this Court and forward the account of the petitioner under G.P.F. head, leave and insurance to Manipur University forthwith on receipt/production of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for initiating action against them. The petitioner may agitate his grievance, if any, against Manipur University in the appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum.