Rajes Kumar, J.— Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the pension and all other post retirement benefits to the petitioner at par with the teachers working in the recognized aided institution. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Sri Sudhakar Tiwari, (since dead) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') was appointed in Hartman Inter College, Ghazipur as Assistant Teacher in 1954. He continued in the said institution upto 1961. In 1961, he joined as Assistant Teacher in Rajghat Besant School (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution') and continued to teach in the institution upto 30.6.1993. The said institution was under grant in aid upto 1974. The petitioner has been paid salary by the Government upto 1974 and thereafter by the Committee of Management. The petitioner retired on 30.6.1993. Having regard to the period during which the petitioner worked as teacher in the institution when it was in grant in aid, the pension of Rs. 203.25 p. has been fixed taking length of service in the institution at 12 years six months and average salary of last three years at Rs. 343.33 p. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that his services from 2.5.1961 to 30.6.1993, till the date of retirement, should be considered for fixing the pension as it is fixed in the case of teachers of aided institutions. The petitioner has been highly discriminated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs. 203.25 p. was a very meagre amount and one could not manage his livelihood with this meagre amount. He submitted that there is no provision in the Intermediate Education Act which empowers the State to frame rules or regulations for aided institutions only. Since the State is only empowered to frame rules in respect of recognized institutions, the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension Insurance Rules will be deemed to apply to the employees of the recognized institutions. Since the State is only empowered to frame rules in respect of recognized institutions, the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension Insurance Rules will be deemed to apply to the employees of the recognized institutions. In this view of the matter besides pension being a right and not a bounty, the petitioner is also entitled to get his pension under the aforementioned pension rules as the institution was admittedly a recognized institution. He further submitted that there is absolutely no basis to distinguish the cases of the institutions, which are getting aid from the State Government and the recognized institutions, which are not getting aid from the State Government. If the teachers of the aided institutions are entitled to get pension, there is absolutely no basis to refuse grant of pension to the teachers of unaided recognized institutions. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is not the case that the petitioner has not been granted pension. The pension is being granted under the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension Insurance Rules which applies to the employees serving the State aided educational institutions. The length of service of the petitioner for the purposes of computation of pension was taken during which the institution was in grant in aid and the petitioner received salary from the State Exchequer. During the period when the institution was receiving aid, the petitioner was treated as the Government employee. When the institution ceased to be Government aided, salary has not been paid by the State but has been paid by the Committee of Management. Therefore, the period during which he served the institution, when it was not under the grant in aid, cannot be considered for computation of grant of pension as he ceased to be the Government employee. 6. I have considered rival submissions sad perused the record. 7. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 , has ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but it is governed by the rules arid a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. 8. The Constitution Bench decision referred herein above has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1976 SC 667 . 9. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , has held as follows : "Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education a person is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to again process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon." 10. In sum and substance, two Constitution Benches have held that the pension is a right of the Government employee and it does not depend upon the discretion or any order by virtue of rules. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service. 11. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus for the payment of pension from the Government. He is only entitled for pension having regard to period of service rendered by him as a Government employee or deemed Government employee with reference to salary received from the State Exchequer when the institution was grant in aid. The petitioner continued in the institution after 1974 when the institution was not in grant in aid under the terms and conditions with the institution and under such terms and conditions the petitioner can claim the pension from the institution and not from the Government. The Government is liable to pay only that much amount of pension, which is determined having regard to the period during which the institution was Government aided and having regard to the length of service in the institution when the institution was Government aided. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for pension payable to the teachers of the Government aided institutions under the rule of pension and U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension and Insurance Rules applicable to the State aided educational institutions and denial of which is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and is not derived from the power under the Act, is without any leg to stand and has no substance. 12. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. _____________