JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner was appointed on 3.12.1962 as Lab Assistant/Demonstrator in B.I.T., Sindri, District-Dhanbad. He worked there as such up to 3.10.1975. He thereafter joined as Assistant Engineer/Engineer Assistant in the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Patna and worked there, as such from 3.10.1975 to 12.1.1975. He was thereafter by orders of the State Government issued in the name of the Governor transferred and posted as Lecturer in the Mechanical Department in Government Polytechnic College, Gaya with effect from 12.1.1975 to 31.1.1999. On superannuation on 31.1.1999 he has been denied pensionary benefits by the State of Bihar on two counts. Firstly, it is said that the service of the petitioner under the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Patna was not public service and which could not be taken into account for the purposes of reckoning pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules. It is submitted that it is an independent corporate entity separate from State. It is then submitted by the State that so far as the period served in B.I.T., Sindri is concerned that is pensionable in proportionate to about 12 years of service but the pensionary benefits would be payable by State of Jharkhand, as B.I.T. is a part of State of Jharkhand. The service in Government Polytechnic College, Gaya was for about 4 years, which is as such pensionable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited is concerned for the purposes of pension it has been held by Division Bench judgment of this Court that it is a public service and as such that period would counted for computing pension. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that service in B.I.T. admittedly being public service, in Corporation being public service and service at Government Polytechnic College, Gaya being public service and all being in continuity without a single days break would have to be taken into account for fixation of pension under the Bihar Pension Rules and the pension would be payable by Government of Bihar, as petitioner last served under the Government of Bihar. 2. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. 2. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. In my view, the first question to be considered is whether service in Corporation aforesaid can be deemed to be public service. In the case of Sri Nanhku Prasad Singh @ Nankhu Prasad Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., dealing with similar matter a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 497 of 2004 allowed the appeal by judgment dated 12.7.2004 (Annexure-16), wherein, it has been clearly held that "working in Government company and or State Public Sector Undertaking is public service". In that case the appellant worked in the Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Limited, after 40 years of service he was told that he was not entitled to pension because that is not public service. A Division of this Court negatived the stand of the State and held it was pensionable, is the view taken by another Division Bench in the case of Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., L.P.A. No. 154 of 2004 judgment dated 12.2.2004, appeal to the Apex Court against which was dismissed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 2005 by order dated 2.8.2007. 4. Here, I may mention that payment of pension raises questions of human right because denial of pension is a human right violation. Once, this is so, as has been held by the Apex Court, then the true identity of a Corporation established by the Government, controlled by the Government has to be seen lifting the corporate fail in doing so. There cannot be anything but the conclusion that the Corporation was nothing but an extended arm of the Government. Thus, that is held in the case of Kapila Hingorani V/s. The State of Bihar, (2003)6 SCC 1 & AIR 2005 SC 980 State of Bihar cannot escape liability, merely, because for some of its activity it has decided to corporatise its activity, it shall remain public service. 5. This veiw of mine is fortified by the facts of the present case. 5. This veiw of mine is fortified by the facts of the present case. Wherein the transfer order of petitioner from the Corporation to the Government Polytechnic College, Gaya has been enclosed as Annexure-7, Annexure-7 is the order of transfer of the petitioner issued by the Joint Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar and issued in the name of Governor of Bihar, by which petitioner has been transferred from the Corporation to the Post of Lecturer Mechanical Department in the Government Polytechnic College, Gaya on vacant post. If what the State submits is to be accepted that the Corporation is not State then Annexure-7 cannot be explained. Annexure-7 is undisputed, which clearly shows that it was the State which it was ultimately exercising control over the employees of the Corporation and it is pursuant to the State Government order that the employees of the Corporation were transferred outside the Corporation. Thus, there is no gainsaying that the petitioner was in Corporation, which period is not public service. 6. This in the facts aforesaid, the conclusion is irressistible that the petitioner continued in public service right from 1962 to his superannuation in 1999 and retired from service under State of Bihar and as such pension would be payable by State of Bihar in accordance with Bihar Pension Rules taking the entire service being service rendered and recognizable for the purposes of pension under the Bihar Pension Rules. As the matter has already taken 10 years to be resolved the State Government and the respondents would complete all formalities in this regard and pay the due amount within a period of three months from today. 7. The writ application is thus allowed.