ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to determine and pay the pension after considering the past service between the period 1968-1982. A further prayer seeking refund of amount deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner has also been made in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as office peon temporarily by order dated 22.7.1968 and he became a permanent employee w.e.f. 31.12.1972. After the petitioner successfully completed the departmental examination, by order dated 09.02.1980 he was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk. By order dated 08.08.1981, the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of submitting fake and bogus educational certificate. However, by order dated 12.04.1982, the petitioner was re-appointed on the post of office peon. The petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2006 however, as the pension of the petitioner was fixed without considering the period prior to his re-appointment, the petitioner submitted representation on 10.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 15.02.2008. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising a plea that since the petitioner was re-appointed by order dated 12.04.1982 on the condition that the benefit of past service would not be given to him as the period between the joining on the post of Typist-cum- Clerk and his re-appointment on the post of office peon would be treated as breakage in service, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the past service. The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is extracted below: “3.(D) That from perusal of the aforesaid office order (Annexure-A) the appointment to the petitioner was made on certain terms and conditions which was purely a temporary in nature. (E) That after the aforesaid appointment the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chottanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, vide his letter no. 2216 dated 21.5.1981 sent the matriculation certificate of 193 workmen including matriculation certificate of the petitioner to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, and requested to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of these matriculation certificates. (F) That on the basis of the aforesaid letter the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, vide his letter no. 206 dated 1.6.1981 sent his report to the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, in which the certificate of some workmen including Shri Shesh Nath Choubey found fake and bogus. (F) That on the basis of the aforesaid letter the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, vide his letter no. 206 dated 1.6.1981 sent his report to the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, in which the certificate of some workmen including Shri Shesh Nath Choubey found fake and bogus. (G) That the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, vide his office order no. 681 dated 8.8.1981 discharged eight workmen including Shri Shesh Nath Choubey from the service with immediate effect as he had submitted fake and bogus matriculation certificate in support of his qualification for the appointment to the post of Typist cum Clerk. (H) That thereafter the petitioner filed a Mercy Appeal before the Board against order of his discharge from the service. (I) That aforesaid Mercy Appeal of the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was directed vide letter no. 1008 dated 12.04.1982 that if terms and conditions mentioned in the letter is acceptable to him then he inform about it to the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area, Ranchi. (J) That in pursuance of the aforesaid letter the petitioner submitted his acceptance in writing. (K) That thereafter the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area electricity Board, Ranchi, vide his office order no. 222/1009 dated 12.4.1982 reappointed the petitioner as office peon with immediate effect under certain terms and conditions which is already accepted by him. (L) That in compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner joined on 12.4.1982 as office peon in MRT Division, Ranchi. (M) That according to the rules the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the past services when he was already discharged on the basis of his fake and bogus matriculation certificate. The rules clearly speaks that removal from service entails forfeiture of past services. (N) That under the facts and circumstances as stated above fixation of pay and pension of the petitioner have been done as per terms and condition in the office order no. 222/1009 dated 12.4.1982 (Annexure-'E') which is already accepted by the petitioner as per rules.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. (N) That under the facts and circumstances as stated above fixation of pay and pension of the petitioner have been done as per terms and condition in the office order no. 222/1009 dated 12.4.1982 (Annexure-'E') which is already accepted by the petitioner as per rules.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the subsequent appointment of the petitioner on the post of office peon by order dated 12.04.1982 was re-appointment, the petitioner was entitled for grant of benefit of the past service. He has further submitted that since the petitioner has worked prior to his discharge from service by order dated 08.08.1981, the order of recovery of back wages is not justified. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that since there was a specific condition in the order of re-appointment dated 12.04.1982 that extra wages drawn by the petitioner on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk would be recovered from him, the order of recovery has rightly been ordered by the respondents. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that order dated 12.04.1982 has been made with the following conditions: 1. “The extra wages drawn by him on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk will be recovered from him. 2. His seniority will be counted afresh in the cadre of Peon with effect from the date of reappointment. 3. The period from joining on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk to the period before re-appointment will be treated as breakage in his continuous service of Peon. 4. He should report for duty to the above Officer within a week on receipt of this order otherwise the order will stand cancelled. 5. No T.A. Will be paid to join the post.” 8. I further find that the petitioner was discharged from service by order dated 08.08.1981 as the matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner, on enquiry, was found forged. Since, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of office peon and he had obtained appointment on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk by submitting forged educational certificate, the petitioner would not be entitled for the payment made in excess to the payment which he would have received while working on the post of office peon. Since, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of office peon and he had obtained appointment on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk by submitting forged educational certificate, the petitioner would not be entitled for the payment made in excess to the payment which he would have received while working on the post of office peon. I further find that the period from which the petitioner worked on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk has been treated as breakage in service in the appointment letter dated 12.04.1982 itself. The order dated 12.04.1982 has not been challenged by the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.