JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vasum, learned GA and Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the State respondents to release the entitled pension as per pro rata (proportionate) retirement benefits of the petitioner for the service he had rendered in the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur before being absorbed/appointed in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, for the period of 19 years 1 day, i.e. from 7.8.1954 to 8.8.1973 under Rule 37 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977 and in terms of the decision of the Government of India as contained in Decision No. 3(1) Appendix 31 of the Civil Service Regulations, Volume-II. 2. BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as LDC in the Electricity Department (Power), Manipur on 7.8.1954 which was declared quasi permanent w.e.f. 1.7.1958. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC on 1.10.1958. After serving as UDC for about 19 years and (1) one day in the Electricity Department, petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, vide order dated 24.05.1973 after applying for the said post through proper channel. According to the petitioner, after being offered the appointment as Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, the petitioner formally resigned from the post of UDC in the Electricity Department. The resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the authorities, which was communicated vide order dated 9.8.1973 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Electricity) w.e.f. 8.8.1973. Upon acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner from the post of UDC w.e.f. 8.8.1973, petitioner was relieved from the charge of the post of UDC from the afternoon of 8.8.1973, as notified in Office Order dated 16.08.1973 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department. After being formally released from the Electricity Department, the petitioner joined as Assistant Superintendent in the Office of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, w.e.f. 8.8.1973. According to the petitioner, petitioner after serving as Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Secondary Education, on reaching the age of superannuation retired from service on 30.09.1991. After being formally released from the Electricity Department, the petitioner joined as Assistant Superintendent in the Office of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, w.e.f. 8.8.1973. According to the petitioner, petitioner after serving as Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Secondary Education, on reaching the age of superannuation retired from service on 30.09.1991. After retirement from service as stated above, petitioner was granted all retiral benefits by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, for the service rendered by the petitioner under the Board. Since the petitioner was of the view that he would be also entitled to retiral benefits for the service rendered by him in the Electricity Department for 19 years 1 day, he approached the State Authorities for grant of pro rata retiral benefits. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, Power, on 11.02.2004 (Annexure-A/6), on the basis of which the Chief Engineer, wrote to the Commissioner, Power on 5.7.2004 stating that the petitioner had applied for pro rata pension for the service rendered by him in the Electricity Department, where he was working w.e.f 7.8.1954 to 7.8.1973 as LDC/UDC and sought for intimating the decision of the Government in this regard (Annexure-A/7). Thereafter, the office of the respondent No. 1 directed the Chief Engineer, Power vide letter dated 4.9.2004, to furnish certain information as to whether petitioner had applied for his transfer to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and allowed by the Department and also whether the petitioner had taken option for entitlement of pro rata pension for the service rendered in the Electricity Department during his resignation tendered or within six months thereafter. To the said query, the Chief Engineer, Power, clarified that the petitioner had applied for his transfer to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and accordingly was released by the Department vide order dated 16.8.1973 and also clarified that the petitioner did not take any option for entitlement of pro rata pension for the service rendered in the Electricity Department during the resignation tendered or within six months thereafter. According to the petitioner, as there was no further progress in the claim made by the petitioner, the petitioner again approached the authorities by submitting several representations for release of the pro rata retiral benefits on 6.6.2006, 9.5.2008, 18.11.2008 and on 25.3.2009. According to the petitioner, as there was no further progress in the claim made by the petitioner, the petitioner again approached the authorities by submitting several representations for release of the pro rata retiral benefits on 6.6.2006, 9.5.2008, 18.11.2008 and on 25.3.2009. Thereafter, the authorities of office of the respondent No. 1 wrote to the Chief Engineer, Power vide letter dated 28.3.2009 stating that the claim of the petitioner was considered in consultation with the Finance Department (PIC) and the FD (PIC) has observed that there was no rule allowing pro rata pension for the service rendered by an employee under the State Government before his absorption in an autonomous body during the relevant point of time and petitioner had already got the opportunity of serving in the Board till he attained the age of 60 years and availed the Contributory Provident Fund benefits which had been already drawn in full and, accordingly declined to entertain the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the writ petition. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 3. The State respondent represented by the Commissioner, Electricity Department, by filing affidavit in opposition contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated that pro rata pension admissible in respect of service rendered under Government would be disbursable only from the date, the Government servant would have normally superannuated had he continued in Government service, provided he exercises an option within 6 months from absorption for either (a) receiving the monthly pension and DCRG already worked out under the usual Government arrangements; and (b) receiving the Gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to commutation tables obtaining on the date of superannuation. It was also stated that when no option is exercised within the prescribed period, the officer will be governed by the alternative (b) option and further, the option once exercised shall be final. It was also further contended that the Ministry of Finance had clarified that these issues were not applicable to autonomous bodies etc under the State Government and since Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and officers absorbed in such institutions are not entitled to pro rata pension. It was also further contended that the Ministry of Finance had clarified that these issues were not applicable to autonomous bodies etc under the State Government and since Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and officers absorbed in such institutions are not entitled to pro rata pension. It was also stated that the petitioner had not exercised option as mentioned above within 6 months of his absorption in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur for either of the alternatives mentioned above. The State respondent also had contended that there was no rule allowing pro rata pension for the service rendered by an employee under the State Government before his absorption in an autonomous body during the relevant point of time. 4. The office of the Accountant General also filed affidavit in opposition in which it has been stated that as per Rule 37 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977 which was in existence at the time of appointment of the petitioner under the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, a government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantively owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a Body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected and from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Government applicable to him. According to respondent No. 4, it has been stated that no such order of absorption in public interest was issued by the State Government and necessary pension papers as required under the Rules were not furnished by the Department of Personnel (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur till date, and accordingly, in the absence such orders for absorption and furnishing of pension papers, as mentioned above, no action could be taken by respondent No. 4 for grant of pensionary benefits as claimed by the petitioner. 5. 5. The Electricity Department, Manipur, also filed their affidavit in opposition contesting the claim of the petitioner, in which it has been stated that as per Rule 37 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, the petitioner had neither been transferred from the Department of Power, Government of Manipur nor deputed to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, but he tendered resignation from his post of UDC which was accepted by the Department and as such, he is not entitled to pro rata contribution. According to the respondents, the petitioner joined service in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur after resigning from his post in the Electricity Department and as such he was not entitled to pro rata pension. It was also contended that Appendix 31A of the erstwhile Compilation of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) clearly states that decision of the Government will apply only in respect of permanent transfer of the government servant to an autonomous body is in public interest and the transfer is to a Government or Quasi corporation and not to a private institution. In the present case, petitioner had resigned from service from the Department of Power and he was subsequently appointed in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and as such he is not entitled to pro rata pension. It has been also submitted that since the petitioner made the claim after 30 years of resignation from the Department, the claim is now stale and cannot be entertained. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to the said affidavit in opposition filed by the State respondents. It has been also submitted that since the petitioner made the claim after 30 years of resignation from the Department, the claim is now stale and cannot be entertained. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to the said affidavit in opposition filed by the State respondents. In the rejoinder affidavit filed in response to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner has contended that as per the revised Government of India’s decision, as contained in CSR, a permanent government servant who has been appointed in an autonomous body financed wholly or substantially by Government on the basis of his own application shall, on his permanent absorption, in such body w.e.f. 21.04.1972 or thereafter be entitled to the same retirement benefits in respect of his past service under the Government as are admissible to a permanent Government servant going on deputation to an autonomous body and getting absorbed therein, except carry forward of leave, for which the petitioner has relied on the explanations/clarifications issued by the Central Government as contained in Appendix 31A of the CSR (Annexure-R/1), the relevant provisions of which, may be reproduced hereunder. APPENDIX 31A Grant of retirement benefits on permanent transfer of Government servants to autonomous bodies. 4. The retirement benefits granted to a Government servant who is permanently absorbed in an autonomous body/public sector undertaking have been reviewed and the following revised terms were sanctioned in respect of those absorbed on or after 16.6.1967. (i) A permanent Government servant on absorption in a public undertaking is eligible for pro rata pension and D.C.R Gratuity based on the length of the qualifying service under Government till the date of absorption. The pension will be calculated on the basis of average emoluments for three years preceding the date of absorption and the D.C.R. Gratuity on the basis of the emoluments immediately before absorption. ............ ............ ............ The above decision will apply only where the permanent transfer from Government service to a public undertaking/autonomous body is in public interest. In all other cases, Government will not accept liability to pay any retirement benefits for the period of service rendered by the Government before his transfer. Pensionary benefits admissible in cases of absorption w.e.f. 21.4.1972. Deputation on ones own volition: 5. Permanent transfer of Government servant who apply in response to a Press advertisement etc. In all other cases, Government will not accept liability to pay any retirement benefits for the period of service rendered by the Government before his transfer. Pensionary benefits admissible in cases of absorption w.e.f. 21.4.1972. Deputation on ones own volition: 5. Permanent transfer of Government servant who apply in response to a Press advertisement etc. for posts in autonomous bodies/public sector undertakings whether incorporated or not, which are wholly or substantially owned by the Government of India is not treated as in the public interest and the Government has no liability to pay any retirement benefits or for carry forward of leave for the period of service rendered under the Government. However, on the position being reviewed further, it was decided that a permanent Government servant who has been appointed in an autonomous body financed wholly or substantially by Government on the basis of his own application shall, on his permanent absorption in such body w.e.f. 21.4.1972 or thereafter be entitled to the same retirement benefits in respect of his past service under the Government as are admissible to a permanent Government servant going on deputation to an autonomous body and getting absorbed therein, except carry forward of leave. (emphasis added) 7. The petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit in response to the affidavit in opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and has contended that the petitioner had, while serving as UDC in the Electricity Department, applied to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, through proper channel by submitting application on 30.04.1973 (Annexure-R/1) stating that on coming to know from the notification No. G/13 dated 24.4.73 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur that one post of Assistant Superintendent is lying vacant in the office, petitioner offered himself as a candidate. Thus, according to the petitioner, petitioner had applied on the basis of public advertisement through proper channel, which is supported by subsequent correspondences. A copy of the appointment letter dated 24.05.1973 (Annexure-R/2) appointing the petitioner as Assistant Superintendent under the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, was endorsed to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Manipur. Thus, according to the petitioner, petitioner had applied on the basis of public advertisement through proper channel, which is supported by subsequent correspondences. A copy of the appointment letter dated 24.05.1973 (Annexure-R/2) appointing the petitioner as Assistant Superintendent under the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, was endorsed to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Manipur. Accordingly, after issuance of the aforesaid appointment order dated 24.05.1973 petitioner submitted his resignation letter to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, through proper channel stating that since he had been appointed as Assistant Superintendent of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, as per his application routed through proper channel, the petitioner was tendering his resignation from the present post w.e.f. 13th July, 1973 to enable him to join the new appointment vide his resignation letter dated 6.6.1973 (Annexure-R/3). The said resignation letter submitted by the petitioner was duly received by the authorities which was communicated by the Superintending Engineer vide order dated 9.8.1973 (Annexure-R/4), a copy of which was also endorsed to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. The subsequent release order dated 16.08.1973 (Annexure-R/5) issued by the Executive Engineer was also duly endorsed to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all these official documents and correspondences would clearly show that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Superintendent by submitting application to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, through proper channel and the State authority i.e., the Electricity Department was fully aware of the same which had granted approval to the resignation to enable him to take the new appointment in Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is therefore, evidently clear that the case of the petitioner would be clearly covered by the provisions of the Article 418(b) of the CSR as also clarified in the Appendix 31A as quoted above. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to Article 418(b) of the CSR which read as follows: 418 (b) Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service. 8. Mr. Vasum, learned GA vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Vasum, learned GA vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner had made the claim basing on the provisions of CSR, more particularly Appendix 31A (Annexure-A/12) which, however, speaks of entitlement upon absorption of service in another undertaking. However, in the present case, it is not a case of absorption but a case of fresh appointment. It has been submitted by Mr. Vasum, that it is clearly mentioned in the said Appendix 31A of the CSR that retirement benefits are to be given only in the case of a permanent government servant being absorbed in a public undertaking. He contends that it is very clear in the present case that the petitioner was freshly appointed as is evident from the appointment letter dated 24.5.1973 which specifically mentioned that the petitioner is appointed temporarily as Assistant Superintendent and that he will be on probation for two years. Therefore, since the petitioner was freshly appointed in the undertaking and not absorbed, the aforesaid provisions of CSR will not be applicable and he will not be entitled to any such pro rata benefit. Otherwise also, at the time of appointment in the said Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, petitioner had not exercised his option as provided in the said regulations and that being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to such benefit. Mr. Vasum, learned GA stated that it is very clear that in the present case petitioner had resigned from service of the State Government as evident from the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer on 6.6.1973 (Annexure-R/3). Therefore, if the petitioner had resigned from the Government service the question of giving any pensionary benefit in respect of the past service rendered by the petitioner under the State Government does not arise having forfeited the benefits upon resignation. Therefore, if the petitioner had resigned from the Government service the question of giving any pensionary benefit in respect of the past service rendered by the petitioner under the State Government does not arise having forfeited the benefits upon resignation. The learned State counsel also stated that apart from that the present petition is hopelessly time barred inasmuch as the petitioner after resigning from his service as Assistant Superintendent in the year 1973 has made the claim for grant of pro rata pension only in the year 2004 and he has not at all explained the delay of more than 30 years in approaching the Court and also not mentioned any reason in the pleadings for such delay and has relied on the decision of this Court rendered on 28.5.2013 in W.A. No. 50 of 2010: State of Manipur Vs Smt. L.(O) Mema Devi & 4 Ors and also decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the State of Maharashtra Vs Digambar : (1995) 4 SCC 683 . Accordingly, learned State counsel has submitted that considering the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the authorities, the petitioner’s claim cannot be entertained at this stage. 9. Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has relied on the arguments advanced by the State counsel and has submitted that Rules do not provide for grant of pro rata pension and no order was issued by the State Government that the absorption in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur was in public interest and also because of delay, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained now. 10. Apropos aforesaid contentions raised by the respondents, Mr. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not correct to contend that it is not a case of absorption for, even a fresh appointment also can be treated as absorption as has been clarified subsequently by the Government as mentioned in Appendix 31A of the CSR quoted above. It has been argued that it is not the case of fresh appointment by resigning inasmuch as resignation had to be submitted for technical reasons and it is not the case that petitioner had resigned first from the said appointment and sought appointment in the Board subsequently. It has been argued that it is not the case of fresh appointment by resigning inasmuch as resignation had to be submitted for technical reasons and it is not the case that petitioner had resigned first from the said appointment and sought appointment in the Board subsequently. The said resignation was necessitated upon the appointment offered by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, which was applied through proper channel as stated above. As regards the contention that the petition is hopelessly time barred, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present claim is a personal claim relating to pension which continues to accrue from time to time. Pension has been held not to be a bounty of the State but a right which cannot be deprived by the State and petitioner has approached this Court after rejection of his claim by the respondent authorities vide letter dated 28.3.2009 issued by the official respondent No. 1 on the ground that there was no rule allowing pro rata pension for the service rendered by an employee under the State Government before his absorption in the autonomous body during the relevant point of time, and at that time the claim of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground of delay and as such, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. Mr. Paonam, learned senior counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India & Ors Vs Tarsem Singh: (2008) 8 SCC 648 wherein the Supreme Court held that where it is a case of recurring default or wrong committed by the authority, the aggrieved party would have the right to approach the Court so long as the wrong continues. In the present case, according to the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is still denied pension, shows that the claim is a recurring one and as such the petitioner would have every right to approach this Court, hence, it cannot be said that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioner has made the claim for grant of pro rata pension benefit based on the Government of India’s decision which has not been specifically denied by the authority in their affidavits. Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioner has made the claim for grant of pro rata pension benefit based on the Government of India’s decision which has not been specifically denied by the authority in their affidavits. As mentioned above, the only ground taken by the State respondents in denying the pro rata pension benefit to the petitioner is that no such rule exists, which is not correct, and accordingly has submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to a direction from this Court to the respondents for grant of pro rata pensionary benefit. DISCUSSION & DECISION: 11. The issue which arises for consideration therefore, is whether the petitioner who was earlier serving in the Electricity Department, Manipur, and who was subsequently appointed in the Board of Secondary Education Manipur, would be entitled to pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Electricity Department which has been opposed by the State Government mainly on the ground that when the petitioner was appointed in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur there was no such rule allowing pro rata pension for the service rendered under the State Government before his subsequent absorption in an autonomous body. It was also the stand of the State Government that the Ministry of Finance had clarified that orders for pro rata pension etc were not applicable to autonomous bodies etc under the State Government and since the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, officers absorbed in such institutions are not entitled to pro rata pension. On the other hand, the office of the Accountant General objected to the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per Rule 37 of the MSC (Pension) Rules, 1977 as applicable at the relevant time, such benefit can be given only when the absorption in the undertaking is in public interest. However, there is no such order of absorption in public interest issued by the government. 12. Therefore, the moot question to be decided is whether any provision exists under the relevant pension rules for making payment of pro rata pension for the earlier service rendered under the Stat Government before absorption and whether the case of the petitioner is covered by any such rule. 12. Therefore, the moot question to be decided is whether any provision exists under the relevant pension rules for making payment of pro rata pension for the earlier service rendered under the Stat Government before absorption and whether the case of the petitioner is covered by any such rule. The Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 came into effect in 1977 i.e. after the absorption of the petitioner to the Board of Secondary Education in the year 1973. Prior to that CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was applicable in the State of Manipur. This contention has not been denied by the State Government. Therefore, this Court will proceed with the proposition that CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that a Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Government applicable to him (Annexure-X/1 of the affidavit in opposition of the respondent No. 4) Therefore, it cannot be said there was no rule allowing pro rata pension for service rendered by an employee under the government before his absorption in an autonomous body at the relevant time as contended by the State Government. The aforesaid provisions have been dealt with and clarified by the Central Government as mentioned in Appendix 31A of the Civil Service Regulation, relevant portions of which have been reproduced above. It has been further clarified that the aforesaid decision will apply only where the permanent transfer from government service to a public undertaking/autonomous body is in the public interest. The aforesaid provisions have been dealt with and clarified by the Central Government as mentioned in Appendix 31A of the Civil Service Regulation, relevant portions of which have been reproduced above. It has been further clarified that the aforesaid decision will apply only where the permanent transfer from government service to a public undertaking/autonomous body is in the public interest. However, on the position being reviewed further, it was decided that a permanent government servant who has been appointed in an autonomous body financed wholly or substantially by Government on the basis of his own application shall, on his permanent absorption in such body w.e.f. 21.4.1972 or thereafter be entitled to the same retirement benefits in respect of his past service under the Government as are admissible to a permanent Government servant going on deputation to an autonomous body and getting absorbed therein, except carry forward of leave. Therefore, in view of the subsequent clarification, it may not be necessary anymore to insist for any order by the Government that such absorption was in public interest as had been contended by the Respondent No. 4. 13. Now we will examine whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid provisions. As stated above, the petitioner was serving in the Electricity Department, Manipur on regular basis till 8.8.1973 when he joined the Board of Secondary Education. As regards the nature of appointment it is clearly evident from the record that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent under the Board of Secondary Education through proper channel (Annexure-R/1). When the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.5.1973, a copy of the said appointment letter was endorsed to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Circle Manipur. When the petitioner submitted his resignation letter to the Superintending Engineer Electricity Department, Manipur on 6.6.1973 (Annexure-R/3) it was categorically stated that he had been appointed as Assistant Superintendent of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur as per his application routed through the proper channel. The said application for resignation was accepted by the competent authority and the Superintending Engineer issued the order on 9.8.1973 informing the petitioner that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted w.e.f. 8.8.1973. A copy of the said order was also endorsed to the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. The said application for resignation was accepted by the competent authority and the Superintending Engineer issued the order on 9.8.1973 informing the petitioner that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted w.e.f. 8.8.1973. A copy of the said order was also endorsed to the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. When the release order was issued on 16.8.1973 by the concerned Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Manipur a copy of the same was also endorsed to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education. All the aforesaid official orders and correspondences clearly indicate that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Secondary Education was through proper channel. It may be also noted that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent in response to a public notification issued by the Board of Secondary Education. It has been clarified by the Central Government as mentioned in para 5 of Appendix 31 A that a permanent govt. servant who has been appointed in a autonomous body financed wholly or substantially by the government on the basis of his own application shall on his permanent absorption in such body w.e.f 21.4.1972 shall be entitled to the same retirement benefits in respect of past service under the government as are admissible to a per government servant going on deputation to an autonomous body and getting absorbed therein. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid provisions will be applicable to the case of the petitioner as he had applied for appointment in the Board of Secondary Education on the basis of a public notification through proper channel, thus with approval of the State Government. The state respondents had opposed the claim for the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner had resigned from the post in the Electricity Department, Manipur, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefit in respect of the service rendered in the state service. This resignation, however, was a technical resignation as he could not have continued in the state service after his appointment in the Board of Secondary Education. This resignation, however, was a technical resignation as he could not have continued in the state service after his appointment in the Board of Secondary Education. Art 418(a) of the CCR provides that though resignation of the public service entails forfeiture of past service, it has been provided under Art 418 (b) that the resignation of an appointment to take up with proper permission another appointment, whether permanent or temporary service in which counts in full or part is not resignation of public service. In the present case as mentioned above, since the petitioner had applied for resignation in the Board of Secondary Education with proper permission of the authority, his resignation from service will not entail forfeiture of his past service. 14. As regards the contention of the State respondents that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time barred in as much as the writ petition has been filed after about 30 years of resignation from Electricity Department, the same cannot be accepted in as much as the right to receive pro rate pensionary benefit would accrue only when the petitioner retires from service. In the present case, since the petitioner retired from service under the Board of Secondary Education in 1991 the question of payment of pro rata did not arise before his retirement. 15. It has been also contended by the State respondent that the at the time of absorption in the Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner did not opt or take any option within 6 months from the date of absorption for either (a) receiving the monthly pension and DCRG already worked out or (b) receiving the gratuity and lump sum amount in lieu of the pension. However the said contention cannot come in the way of the right of the petitioner inasmuch as it was also clarified that in the event no option is exercised within prescribed period the officer will be governed by the alternative (b). Therefore, even if assuming that the petitioner did not make any option, though he claims that the petitioner was never offered any option, the case of the petitioner will be governed by the alternative (b) and he cannot be denied the benefits contemplated under alternative (b). 16. Therefore, even if assuming that the petitioner did not make any option, though he claims that the petitioner was never offered any option, the case of the petitioner will be governed by the alternative (b) and he cannot be denied the benefits contemplated under alternative (b). 16. It was also contended that the Ministry of Finance had clarified that the aforesaid benefits were not applicable to the autonomous body under the State Government and since the Board of Secondary Education, is an autonomous body registered under Societies Registration Act, the question of payment of pro rata pension does not arise. However, it may be mentioned that the respondent authorities have not produced any order issued by the Ministry of Finance to the effect that it is not applicable to such autonomous body, such as the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. 17. As regards the contention of the Respondent No. 4 that the absorption must be declared by the Government to be in public interest, as mentioned above, the Central Government had already clarified as stated in para 5 of Appendix 31A reproduced above, that even in a case of absorption in an autonomous body on the basis of his own application, on his permanent absorption, the pensionary benefit will be entitled. Therefore, considering the above, and for the reasons discussed, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be denied pensionary benefit in respect of the service rendered by him under the Electricity Department, Manipur and accordingly he will be entitled to get the appropriate pro rate contribution from the State Government towards his pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Electricity Department, Manipur before his absorption in the Board of Secondary Education. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and State respondents are directed to pass appropriate order for release of pensionary benefits by way of pro rata contribution for the regular service rendered by him in the Electricity Department, Manipur before his absorption in the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, on 8.8.1973. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the State respondents within a period of three months from today.