JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. Petitioner joined service of the 2nd respondent University as Physical Education Professor w.e.f. 16-11-1976 and he retired on 31-01-2001. Before entering service of the 2nd respondent University, the petitioner had put in service in the first respondent university as Athletic Coach from 26-05-1970 to 15-11-1976. Disputed issue involved is as to whether the prior service in the 1st respondent University can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. It is evident from Ext.P7 that the 1st respondent University had already transferred the pension contributions, calculated on the basis of pay drawn after regularization on 28-02-1972, along with interest, to the 2nd respondent University. It is stated that the deposit made in transfer of such contributions was accepted by the 2nd respondent. But after a long lapse of time the Registrar of the 2nd respondent University had issued Ext.P8 proceedings to the effect that, prior service put in by the petitioner at the 1st respondent University cannot be reckoned in view of the direction issued by the Government prohibiting mobility of personnel between the Universities. On the basis of Ext.P8, the Controller of the Finance Wing of the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P9 proceeding, according sanction for refund of the amount deposited by the 1st respondent university. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P8 and P9 proceedings and inter alia seeking direction for considering his prior service for computing pensionary benefits. 2. Heard; Sri.Philip.J. Vettikad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Babu Joesph Kuruvathazha standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent university. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that the Government have not permitted mobility of personnel between the Universities, is without any basis. Ext.P11, copy of a Government Order, is pointed out in order to content that on identical situations the Government have recommended for necessary amendments in the Kerala Service Rules, for the purpose of reckoning prior service put in by Government officials at Municipalities, Panchayats, Universities, etc. and vise versa. In Ext.P11, it is categorically stated that, the Government, after consideration of all aspects, have ordered that service put in by the Government employs in Municipalities/Panchayats and Universities prior to their entry in the State Government Service, including Aided school service and vise versa, can be reckoned for pensionary benefits. and vise versa. In Ext.P11, it is categorically stated that, the Government, after consideration of all aspects, have ordered that service put in by the Government employs in Municipalities/Panchayats and Universities prior to their entry in the State Government Service, including Aided school service and vise versa, can be reckoned for pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner had also placed reliance on Ext.P12 judgment of this court wherein it is held that previous service of university employees in aided colleges can be reckoned for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. 4. In spite of the writ petition filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Standing counsel is not in a position to point out any specific orders of the Government in any manner prohibiting reckoning of prior service put in by its employees in any other universities. Further, I take note of the fact that contributions with respect to pensionary benefits, relating to the prior service has been paid by the 1st respondent university. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no justification in not reckoning prior service put in by the petitioner at the 1st respondent university, as qualifying service for computing pensionary benefits. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P8 and P9 are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reckon prior service put in by the petitioner in the 1st respondent University, for the period after regularization till 15-11-1976, as qualifying service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. The amount of contribution deposited by the 1st respondent university, if already return shall be remitted to the 2nd respondent for facilitating payment of the differential amounts in the pensionary benefits. 6. The needful steps in this regard shall be done by respondents 1 and 2 at the earliest and the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall be revised accordingly along with payment of arrears, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.