Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the Collectorate, Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, he was shifted to Civil Court, Muzaffarpur, as stenographer and retired on 31.1.1994. After his retirement the Patna High Court through its letter dated 21.2.1994 extended his service on re-employment for six months. Petitioner served for six months from 18.3.1994 to 17.9.1994. The period of re-employment was further extended for six months from 3.10.1994 to 4.4.1995. For the third time it was again extended for further six months for the period from 26.7.1995 to 25.1.1996. On 11.3.1996 petitioner submitted an application before the District Judge, Mazaffarpur, for fixation of his pension and payment of his other retirement benefits by computing the extended period of service through re-employment as extension of service and also for treating the gap period during his three re-employments as leave without pay. Since no action was taken by the respondent-authorities, this application has been filed for a direction to respondent no. 2, District Judge, Muzaffarpur, for computing the extended period of petitioners service through re-employment as extension of service and the gap period as leave without pay. Petitioner has placed reliance on Finance Departments circular no. 8075 dated 17.8.1978 which relates to payment of leave encashment. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 stating that the writ application is not maintainable for the relief prayed. It has been stated that the service of the writ petitioner was not an extension of his service but it was re-employment in the lower grade after breakage of service and it cannot be termed as extension of service. Considering that, the period of re-employment cannot be calculated for pensionary purpose and the gap period, in between first, second and third re-employment cannot be treated as period "leave without pay". The prayer made by the petitioner is against the rule of Bihar Service Code and it is fit to be dismissed. 4. The writ petitioner retired on 31.1.1994 and after gap of two months he was re-employed and joined on 18.3.1994. On being re-employed he was placed as lower grade stenographer. Similarly, the second and third re-employment were ordered in his favour. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4. The writ petitioner retired on 31.1.1994 and after gap of two months he was re-employed and joined on 18.3.1994. On being re-employed he was placed as lower grade stenographer. Similarly, the second and third re-employment were ordered in his favour. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has referred Rule 34 of the Central Service Rule 1974 and submitted that this rule clearly indicates that if a person is re-employed after retirement, it will be deemed that he has entered into Government service for the first time from the date of his re-employment. It will not be continuation of his period of service. It has also been submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that Bihar Service Code also does not permit the admissibility of leave or other benefits for regular employees also for complete three years. Petitioners re-employment continued in three phases each for six months and it is not sufficient for admissibility of leave or other benefits under the provisions of Bihar Service Code. Counsel for the respondents has also given reference of Rule 161(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 under which a Government servant on re-employment should draw the initial pay of the post unless Government sanctions advance increments under rule 83 of the Bihar Service Code. 6. Considering the submissions of the parties and the provisions of law referred by the counsel, I find that relief which has been prayed by the petitioner in the writ application cannot be allowed as there is no such provision either under the Bihar Service Code or under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, in case of re-employment. Admittedly, after retirement the petitioners service was not extended. He retired on 31.1.1994 and joined in the lower scale of employment after two months for a period of six months only. Again after some breakage of time another re-employment order was passed in favour of the petitioner for six months only. The third order of re-employment was also issued for six months but after some breakage of time in between second and third re-employment. Since it was not a continuous service and it was not the continuation of the earlier service of the petitioner, he cannot claim any benefits in the length of service or in pensionary benefit on account of reemployment. Since it was not a continuous service and it was not the continuation of the earlier service of the petitioner, he cannot claim any benefits in the length of service or in pensionary benefit on account of reemployment. So far the gap period in between first and third re-employment is concerned, it cannot be counted as a period "leave without pay". The first and second re-employment was not a continuation of earlier service. Re-employment was completely independent of previous period of re-employment and the period in between in no case can be treated as a period leave without pay. 7. There is another aspect of the matter, that the petitioner had filed a representation for similar relief, before respondent no.2 in the year 1996 which was not allowed. After nine years the petitioner has filed this application for similar relief which cannot be allowed as there is no such provision under the Bihar Pension Rules or under Bihar Service Code. 8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.