JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. N. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi Department of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidypeeth Varanasi on 28.10.1978. He retired on 7.4.1995. Prior to his appointment in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, he served as Lecturer in Hindi in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam from 2.9.1967 to 17.10.1978. After retirement, the petitioner made an application that his pension be fixed after adding the period of his service as Lecturer in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam. The resolution dated 28/29.10.1991 passed by the Executive Council of the Kashi Vidyapeeth has been relied for the said purpose including clause 15.05(c) of the First Statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi. The Registrar of the University wrote a letter on 10.4.1994 to the State Government referring to the Government order dated 24.10.1983. The Registrar informed the petitioner that since no reply has been sent by the State Government, his services as Lecturer in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam cannot be added. The petitioner also sent representation for adding his period of service as Lecturer in Hindi in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam. Various correspondences in this regard between the University and the State Government have been brought on record. The petitioner filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “1- writ of mandamus directing the respondent to re-calculate pension and other benefit payable to the petitioner, in accordance with Statute 15.05 of Mahatma Gandhy Vidya Peeth Varanasi and his earlier services in other institution be added to his service in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth. 2- issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give benefits of the past services of 11 years and 1 month and 16 days rendered as Hindi Lecturer at Tinshkia Degree College, Assam for the purpose of fixation of post retirement benefits. 3- issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and to fix the post retirement dues including monthly benefits after taking into consideration the past services of 11 years, 1 month and 16 days rendered by the petitioner as Hindi Lecturer at Tinshkia Degree College, Assam. 3- issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and to fix the post retirement dues including monthly benefits after taking into consideration the past services of 11 years, 1 month and 16 days rendered by the petitioner as Hindi Lecturer at Tinshkia Degree College, Assam. 4- Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to decide the recommendation dated 8.4.2000 made by the Registrar (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and to decide the representation dated 2.1.2001 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition). 5- issue in alternative, a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure-11).” 3. The writ petition was earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court and was allowed on 31.3.2003, following the Division Bench judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shanker Saran v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.12.1999 with the direction to add the petitioner’s service rendered at Tinsukia Degree College Assam for the purpose of pension. Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed by the State of U.P. before the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 2945 of 2006, State of U.P. v. Laxmi Shanker, which was disposed of by the Apex Court noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Shanker Saran v. State of U.P. and others (supra). The apex Court set aside the order of the Division Bench allowing the writ petition, by the following order: “A perusal of the said order would show that there was absolutely no discussion by the Bench as to why the said direction in regard to the petitioner’s pension was issued. The order, in our opinion, is non-speaking. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of U.P. & ors preferred special leave petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.9.2000 on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. The special leave petition was not disposed of by this Court on merit. In the impugned order also, except adopting the reason given by the order dated 7.12.1999, no other reason was given by the Division Bench. Before us, several legal contentions have been raised by Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the State and also countered by Mr. Rohan Thanavi, learned counsel for the respondent. In the impugned order also, except adopting the reason given by the order dated 7.12.1999, no other reason was given by the Division Bench. Before us, several legal contentions have been raised by Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the State and also countered by Mr. Rohan Thanavi, learned counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, the matter required detailed investigation with reference to Section 33 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and also with reference to the General Order issued under reference No. 2148/Pandrah/15/1983-46(14)/83 dated 24.12.1983. In our view, Regulation 15.05 of the Statute of the University is also required to be considered for determining the claim of the respondent herein. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court and restore the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9346 of 2001 and request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within six months from the date of production of copy of order of this Court by either party. In view of the remittal order now passed by us, we set aside the order dated 31.3.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9346 of 2001. Both parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings and documents before the High Court. The question of law is also left open. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.” 4. After the judgment of the Apex Court, the aforesaid writ petition was restored and is now being decided by this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the Government order dated 24.12.1983, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the second supplementary affidavit, specially paragraph 2 (6) of the said Government order. He submits that the services of the petitioner rendered in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam should be added by virtue of paragraph 2 (6) of the Government order dated 24.12.1983. He submits that the petitioner has been ready to deposit the contribution as recommended by the University but no orders were passed to deposit the said contribution, hence, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of adding his services rendered at Tinsukia Degree College, Assam for the purpose of pension. He submits that the petitioner has been ready to deposit the contribution as recommended by the University but no orders were passed to deposit the said contribution, hence, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of adding his services rendered at Tinsukia Degree College, Assam for the purpose of pension. He placed reliance on Statute 15.05 (c) of the First Statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi and submits that according to the aforesaid Statute the services rendered in a college outside the State of U.P. shall be added to length of service, the same principle will be applied for computation of pension also. 6. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the University submits that the matter is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A.P. Paliwal v. State of U.P., 2010 (8) ADJ 68 . He submits that Full Bench after considering the Government order dated 24.12.1983 held that period of service rendered in an institution out side the State of U.P. cannot be added for the purpose of computation of pension. He submits that on the recommendation sent by the University, the State Government sent a reply on 8.5.2000 annexing the order of 6.4.2000, declining to add the period of service rendered in other State on the ground that there is no provision to add the said period. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that matter is covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A.P. Paliwal (supra) and there is no provision for adding the services rendered in other State. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The petitioner having worked as Lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith University is governed by Statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidypaith, which is a University governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The first Statutes of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi have been framed in exercise of the powers under section 50 of the State Universities Act, 1973. Statute 15.05 (c) being relevant is quoted below: “15.05. The following rules shall be followed in determining the seniority of teachers of the University : (a) ................................... (b) ................................... The first Statutes of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi have been framed in exercise of the powers under section 50 of the State Universities Act, 1973. Statute 15.05 (c) being relevant is quoted below: “15.05. The following rules shall be followed in determining the seniority of teachers of the University : (a) ................................... (b) ................................... (c) When any teacher holding substantive post in any University (other than the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith) or in any constituent College or in any institution whether in the State of Uttar Pradesh or outside Uttar Pradesh, whether before or after August 1,1989 is appointed to a post of corresponding rank or grade in the University, the period of service rendered by such teacher in that grade or rank in such University shall be added to his length of service.” 9. Section 33 of the U.P. State Universities Act provides for pension, which is quoted below: “Sec. 33. Pensions, Provident Fund, etc.—The University and every affiliated or associated college shall constitute, for the benefit of its officers, teachers and other employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions [ as may be specified by general or special order by the State Government] such pension, insurance or provident fund, as it may deem fit including a fund from which such teachers or their heirs, as the case may be, shall be paid pension or gratuity in the event of their incurring disability, wound or death in connection with the discharge of their duties as Superintendent of a Centre or invigilator as defined in Uttar Pradesh Universities (Provisions regarding Conduct of Examinations) Act, 1965.” 10. The Government order dated 24.12.1983 was issued for the grant of retirement benefit to the University teachers of the State. Paragraph 2 (6) of the Government order on which much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner is quoted below: “(6) For fixation of pension amount and the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, only the services rendered till the age of 58 years, after the appointment in the University on the basis of selection and approval, will be computed. The regular and whole time services rendered as a teacher in other State University, situated in the State or any other Non-Govermental aided degree college, affiliated or associated/related to it, shall only be added in the eligible service of the University when the concerned teacher has rendered continuous service as is provided in Article 310 of C.S.R. And satisfies the conditions fixed by paras 418 A and B of C.S.R. And all the amounts obtained in contributory provident fund in his whole institution, all the amounts of University/Managerial/ Government contribution/ grant, including the interest, accrued and compiled thereon till the date of depositing the same in the Government treasury, is deposited in consistent account head.” 11. According to section 33 of the U.P. State Universities Act, the pensions, provident fund etc. shall be subject to such condition as may be specified by the general or special order of the State Government. The Government order dated 24.12.1983 has been governing the retirel benefits. Much emphasis has been placed on Statute 15.05 (c). A perusal of the above first Statute indicates that said Ist Statute was framed for the purpose of determination of the seniority of teachers. Statute 15.05 (c) can only govern the determination of seniority. By virtue of Statute 15.05 (c), it cannot be said that the said period shall also be added for the purpose of pension. The payment of pension with regard to the State Universities is liability of the State and as per section 33 it has to be governed in accordance with the general or special order of the State Government. The claim of the petitioner has thus to be considered in accordance with the Government order issued by the State from time to time. Paragraph 2 (6) of the Government order on which much reliance has been placed does not help the petitioner for adding his period of service rendered in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam. The relevant words in the Government order are “the regular and whole time services rendered as a teacher in other State University, situated in the state or any other Non Governmental aided degree college, affiliated or associated/ related to it “ has to mean the State universities or any non aided Government Degree college affiliated to any college or State University. The said clause cannot be interpreted to mean that colleges outside the State are governed by paragraph 2 (6). The said clause cannot be interpreted to mean that colleges outside the State are governed by paragraph 2 (6). Clause (6) of paragraph 2 of the Government order dated 24.12.1983 does not attract the services rendered in any college out side the State of U.P. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Ashok Paliwal (supra) has considered the same issue. The matter was referred to the Full Bench in view of the various judgments of the Division Bench by which orders were passed directing for adding the services rendered in other State. A Division Bench hearing the similar matter, did not agree with the aforesaid view and referred questions, which have been noted by the Full Bench in paragraph 3 of the judgment. The Full Bench after considering all relevant Government orders and the judgment of the Apex Court in Shardendu Bhushan v. Nagpur University, Nagpur and others, 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 53, held that services rendered in the college outside the State cannot be added for pension purpose. Following answer was given by Full Bench in paragraph 47 which is quoted below. “Similarly the Judiciary has to exercise restraint while examining questions arising out of allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination. A law which is capable of being bent can be subjected to interpretation to iron out the creases, but it cannot be broken under the garb of suspected arbitrariness. This principle has been extended even to the highest degree of extraordinary plenary powers like Act 142 of the Constitution of India. Reference may be had to the decisions in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2004 (2) SCC 130 Para 36 and in the case of Laxmidas Morarji (dead) by LRS. v. Behrose Darab Madan, 2009 (10) SCC 425 Para 24 to 25. In sum and substance there cannot be a mandamus against law. In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove our answer to both the questions is in the negative to the following effect. 1. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shardendu Bhushan (supra) does not in any way lay down the law for adding the length of services of a teacher retiring in the State of U.P. appointed in a degree college affiliated to a University covered by the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 rendered in a different State for computation of pension. 2. 2. A direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for addition of the length of service rendered by such a teacher outside the State of U.P. for computation of pension cannot be issued in the absence of any statutory provision or Government Order upon the retirement of such a teacher.” 12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the ratio of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Dr. A. P. Paliwal (supra), we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. —————