JUDGMENT : HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–This petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of retiral dues of the petitioner along with statutory interest as well as penal interest and cost of litigation. 2. Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Lecturer in the Department of English at B. N. College, Patna under Patna University on 30.04.1958 and subsequently, he was confirmed with effect from 01st April, 1964 vide notification no. G/21586 dated 27.10.1965. He was promoted on the post of Reader in the year 1975 and superannuated from service on 30.11.1992 as Reader from the English Department, B.N. College, Patna under Patna University. After superannuation, he submitted all the necessary papers for payment of retiral and other dues but his retiral dues were not paid and thereafter petitioner made several representations not only before the Vice Chancellor, Patna University but also Chancellor as well as State Government. The Registrar, Patna University vide letter no. 1191 dated 22.07.2003 asked the petitioner for submission of relevant documents and thereafter, petitioner again submitted relevant papers but nothing was paid to him. Lastly, petitioner filed this writ petition on 05.09.2012 which was admitted by this Court for hearing on 29.11.2013. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Patna University and it has been averred in the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer on 30.04.1958 but he remained on extra ordinary leave for study and employment from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and subsequently, joined his post on 01.09.1973. It has also been averred that the petitioner remained absent from the duty for more than five years and proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 and when petitioner did not join his post, his leave was extended and he was directed to join the duty on 02.01.1981 but he did not join. Again petitioner was directed to join his duty by 31.01.1984 with caution to him that failure on his part to join the duty till the above stated date would be treated as his termination from service but petitioner again failed to join his post till 31.01.1984. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that petitioner joined his duty on 20.08.1987 under fellowship scheme after remaining absent from 23.03.1975 and lastly, he retired from the service on 30.11.1992. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that petitioner joined his duty on 20.08.1987 under fellowship scheme after remaining absent from 23.03.1975 and lastly, he retired from the service on 30.11.1992. Furthermore, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that there was breakage of service of the petitioner and since petitioner had not completed ten years of service, his claim for the payment of pension was rejected in the light of Rule 14 of the Patna University Retirement Benefit Statutes. 4. I.A. No. 1333 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying therein to quash the part of order dated 22.10.2013 issued vide memo no. 1210 by which it was observed that petitioner has not completed minimum ten years of service in Patna University and it has been brought on the record by the aforesaid interlocutory application that notice issued by the Registrar, Patna University on 29.10.1983 in the light of decision taken by the Syndicate its meeting held on 05.10.1983 as well as Syndicate Resolution No. 61 dated 20.01.1984 were stayed by the Chancellor till further order and the information regarding the aforesaid stay was given to the petitioner vide notice dated 03.03.1984 and thereafter, petitioner gave his joining which was accepted by the Patna University with effect from 20.08.1987 and accordingly, there was no breakage of service of the petitioner and petitioner has completed more than ten years of service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, petitioner joined on the post of Lecturer in B.N. College, Patna under Patna University on 30.04.1958 and later on, proceeded on extra ordinary leave for study from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and the aforesaid leave was granted by the Patna University which is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and, therefore, the aforesaid period cannot be construed as unauthorized absence. He further submitted that Annexure-B to the counter affidavit shows that Registrar, Patna University gave notice dated 29.10.1983 to petitioner mentioning the decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 05.10.1983 directing those employees who were on leave for five years or more to join their post latest by 31.01.1984 with caution that failure on the part of employees to join their post within the above stated date shall be deemed as termination from service. Again the Syndicate of Patna University resolved vide resolution no. Again the Syndicate of Patna University resolved vide resolution no. 61 dated 21.01.1984 to reject the request of petitioner and others to extend the period of joining but the Chancellor stayed resolution no. 19 dated 05.10.1983 and resolution no. 61 dated 20.01.1984 of Syndicate, Patna University till further order and the aforesaid information was given to the petitioner by the Registrar, Patna University vide his letter no. G/2638 dated 03.03.1984 which is evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the University could not bring any document on record to show that the stay order of the Chancellor was ever recalled though this Court granted time to the Patna University to bring the document on record to show the breakage of service of the petitioner. It is further contended by him that Annexure-D to the counter affidavit reveals that the petitioner joined in B.N. College, Patna and his joining was accepted by the Patna University from 20.08.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards Annexure-F to the counter affidavit and submitted that according to the Patna University itself, the petitioner was granted extra ordinary leave for study and employment in abroad from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and again proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 which was extended up to 03.03.1984. He submitted that according to Annexure-F, there was breakage of service of the petitioner from 31.01.1984 to 19.08.1987 but as a matter of fact, petitioner continued on leave for the aforesaid period and order of termination from service was stayed by the Chancellor till further order and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was breakage of service of petitioner because he was never terminated from the service. It is further contended by him that petitioner had already completed ten years of service in Patna University and, therefore, the rejection of claim of retiral benefit of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of Kameshwar Jha Vs. It is further contended by him that petitioner had already completed ten years of service in Patna University and, therefore, the rejection of claim of retiral benefit of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of Kameshwar Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2000(1) PLJR 201 in which petitioner of aforesaid case made himself absent from his service in the year 1972 and thereafter, a notice was issued to him for his unauthorized absence directing him to return to his work within three days but petitioner of that case never joined and after attaining the date of superannuation retired from service on 31.01.1984 and when he claimed for his pensionary benefit, his claim was denied on the ground of unauthorized absence but a Bench of this Court held at para 5 to the above stated judgment as follows :— This court does not find substance in the last submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is true that when no action was taken for his said unauthorized absence, the petitioner will be entitled for pensionary benefits on the basis of last ten months salary drawn by him and not for any other benefit or the salary on that basis for which he would have been entitled if his service during his unauthorised absence is also counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. According to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Jain Vs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 619 (at 621 left hand column), the pensionary benefits have to be calculated on the basis of the last ten months salary drawn by the petitioner. Obviously when no salary is claimed by the petitioner for his absence till the date of his retirement, his pensionary benefits cannot be computed on the basis of the salary which he would have drawn during the period of his unauthorised absence, but there cannot be any dispute that for the purpose of computation regarding entitlement/eligibility of the pensionary benefits, the period of unauthorised absence cannot be ignored so long his services was not terminated. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the above stated case, petitioner made unauthorized absence but in the present case, petitioner was on leave and, therefore, even if the period in question be treated as unauthorized absence, then also, petitioner is entitled for his retiral benefit because neither petitioner was terminated nor any proceeding was initiated against him for the above stated so-called absentee period. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Patna University contended that Syndicate of Patna University took decision to terminate those employees who were on leave for more than five years, if they failed to join their duty by 31.01.1984 and against the aforesaid decision of Syndicate, petitioner and some others made request but their request was rejected by resolution no. 61 dated 20.01.1984 of Syndicate of Patna University. He fairly conceded this fact that no doubt, the resolution no. 19 dated 05.10.1983 and resolution no. 61 dated 20.01.1984 were stayed by the Chancellor till further order but later on, the aforesaid stay order was recalled. He further contended that the petitioner proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 and the aforesaid leave was extended up to 03.03.1984 and in spite of direction of Syndicate, petitioner did not join his post and lastly, petitioner joined in B. N. College, Patna on 20.08.1987 in the chain of Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha under teacher fellowship scheme and, therefore, it is apparent that there was breakage of service from 04.03.1984 to 19.08.1987 and that is the reason the claim of the petitioner was rejected which is evident from Annexure-F to the counter affidavit. 9. Certain facts are admitted in this case. It is an admitted position that petitioner joined on the post of Lecturer in the department of English at B.N. College, Patna under the Patna University on 30.04.1958 and subsequently, he was appointed on substantive basis with effect from 01.04.1964 on the same post vide notification no. G/21586 dated 27.10.1965. It is also an admitted position that petitioner was on extra ordinary leave for study and employment in abroad from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and joined on 01.09.1973 and again proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 which was extended up to 03.03.1984. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that Syndicate of Patna University took decision vide resolution no. G/21586 dated 27.10.1965. It is also an admitted position that petitioner was on extra ordinary leave for study and employment in abroad from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and joined on 01.09.1973 and again proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 which was extended up to 03.03.1984. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that Syndicate of Patna University took decision vide resolution no. 19 dated 05.10.1983 to terminate the services of those employees who were on leave on any ground for a period of five years or more, if they failed to join their post by 31.01.1984. Admittedly, the aforesaid resolution no. 19 dated 05.10.1983 and subsequent resolution no. 61 dated 20.01.1984 of Syndicate of Patna University were stayed by the Chancellor, Patna University which is evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. There is nothing on the record to show that aforesaid stay order of Chancellor, Patna University was ever recalled. Admittedly, petitioner joined in B.N. College, Patna under the Patna University and his joining was accepted with effect from 20.08.1987. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record to show that any departmental proceeding or any action was ever taken by the Patna University against the petitioner for the above stated so-called absence from 04.03.1984 to 19.08.1987. 10. Annexure-F to the counter affidavit shows that vide memo no. AC/Pension/1210 dated 22.10.2013 petitioner was informed by the Patna University that he had not completed minimum ten years of service in Patna University and, therefore, he was not entitled for the pension from Patna University as per Rule 14 of the Patna University Retirement Benefit Statutes. The aforesaid rule 14 of Patna University Retirement Benefit Statutes runs as follows :— Every employee should have put in a minimum of ten years of qualifying service to be eligible for pension subject to such rules as may be applicable to the categories of pension set out below. Incase the qualifying service falls below ten years, a gratuity as in Schedule ‘C’ will be admissible. 11. The aforesaid rule shows that to qualify for pension an employee should have put in a minimum of ten years of qualifying service. 12. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was appointed on 30.04.1958 and his service was confirmed with effect from 01.04.1964 and he proceeded on extra ordinary leave for study from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and again joined on 01.09.1973. 12. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was appointed on 30.04.1958 and his service was confirmed with effect from 01.04.1964 and he proceeded on extra ordinary leave for study from 08.07.1968 to 30.08.1973 and again joined on 01.09.1973. Furthermore, he again proceeded on leave from 23.03.1975 and his leave was extended up to 03.03.1984 and, therefore, even if the aforesaid period is taken into consideration, then also, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not completed ten years of qualifying service. Moreover, there is no termination order nor there is breakage in service of the petitioner and admittedly, the leave of the petitioner was extended up to 03.03.1984 and termination order of Syndicate, Patna University was stayed by the Chancellor, Patna University and the said stay order was never recalled. Therefore, in my view, the respondents committed error in rejecting the claim of retiral benefit of the petitioner and furthermore, I am also of the view that petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits and not for the salary for the period from 31.01.1984 to 20.08.1987. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this writ petition along with I.A. No. 1333 of 2014 stand allowed with direction to respondent no. 1/concerned respondents to ensure the sanction and payment of all retiral dues of the petitioner with statutory interest till the date of actual realization within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ?