JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri N. Promod Chandra Singh, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Th. Babloo, Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions for release of pensionary and retiral benefits including gratuity, encashment etc. by the respondents. 3. Since both the petitioners are similarly situated, their writ petitions have been considered together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. The facts of the case which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Chowkidar and Mali respectively on temporary basis in the Office of the Manipur Agricultural College on the recommendation of a DPC vide order dated 05-02-1981 and were confirmed vide order dated 02-04-1992 w.e.f. 05-02-1984. While the petitioners were working in that capacity, an Ordinance dated 16-02-1994 came to be issued by the Central Agricultural University by which the management of the Manipur Agricultural College was taken over with one of the conditions that all duly appointed staff teachers and non-teachers of the Manipur Agricultural College shall be deemed to be the staff of the Central Agricultural University. After the said Manipur Agricultural College being taken over by the Central Agricultural University, the petitioners and other staff were allowed to cross Efficiency Bar vide order dated 22-07-1996. The petitioners, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from their service w.e.f. 31-05-2000 vide order dated 21-11-2000 and w.e.f. 30-3-2001 vide order dated 19-2-2001 issued by the Central Agricultural University. Accordingly, the Central Agricultural University issued orders dated 29-5-2001, 31-12-2001 and 26-05-2005 sanctioning amounts of Rs. 15000/-, Rs. 32,443/- and Rs. 14,588/- towards their C.P. F, Leave Encashment and Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). 5. According to the petitioners, since they were, though entitled to pension, gratuity and pension arrears, not paid the same, they approached the respondent No. 3 for payment of their due pension, gratuity and pension arrears by way of representations dated 13-06-2005, 12-07-2005, 06-10-2007 and 29-02-2008 but to no effect. 5. According to the petitioners, since they were, though entitled to pension, gratuity and pension arrears, not paid the same, they approached the respondent No. 3 for payment of their due pension, gratuity and pension arrears by way of representations dated 13-06-2005, 12-07-2005, 06-10-2007 and 29-02-2008 but to no effect. Being aggrieved, one of the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1657 of 2000, praying for release of pension and arrear of pay and allowances, which was withdrawn by him on 15-01-2004 with the idea that the petitioner's case might be considered by the respondents therein as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Since the pensionary benefits were not given, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 6. The writ petitions are contested by the respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that there was no pension scheme of the employees of the erstwhile Manipur Agricultural College and they were governed by the provisions of the Manipur Agricultural College Contributory Fund-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1985. The petitioners were not entitled to pension and gratuity under the provisions of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 in view of the provision of Rule 2 (d) thereof. The petitioners became employees of the Central Agricultural University w.e.f. 22-11-1993 without transfer of employer's share of Contributory Provident Fund Contribution plus pro-rata DCRG liability to Central Agricultural University and their past services could not be combined with that of the Central Agricultural University for purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. After their being superannuated, the petitioners have been paid all the retiral benefits under the rules applicable to them without any protest from their side. It is further stated that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 was applicable to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners were not entitled to pension because they had not completed 10 (ten) years of qualifying service as required under the said rules. Moreover, one of the present writ petitions is being filed again after the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without any liberty being granted by the Hon'ble High Court and hence, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Moreover, one of the present writ petitions is being filed again after the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without any liberty being granted by the Hon'ble High Court and hence, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Although the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to pension, he failed to produce copies of the relevant rules by which the petitioners were entitled to pension nor did he refer to any particular provision of law. On the other hand, the counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not applicable to the petitioners in view of the Rule 2 (d) thereof. The contention of the counsel appearing for the respondents and in particular, the Central Agricultural University does not seem to be correct and hence, can not be upheld. It may not be in dispute that the ordinance dated 16-2-1994 does not mention anything about the payment of pension on the retirement of teaching or non-teaching staff including the petitioners who later became the staff of the Central Agricultural University. But the language of the condition (b) of the said ordinance is very clear and unambiguous when it states that all duly appointed staff teachers and non-teachers of the Manipur Agricultural College shall be deemed to be the staff of the Central Agricultural University. On perusal of the said ordinance, this court is of the view that from the day the ordinance came into being, the petitioners became the staff of the Central Agricultural University and therefore, all the rules applicable to the existing staff of the Central Agricultural University would apply to the petitioners also. It will be incorrect on the part of the counsel appearing for the Central Agricultural University to submit that the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not applicable to the petitioners and the petitioners will not be entitled to what is provided under the said rules. 8. However, there is force in the alternate submission made by the counsel for the Central Agricultural University that even assuming for the sake of argument but not admitting that the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 was applicable to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners were not entitled to pension because they had not completed 10 (ten) years of qualifying service as required under the said rules. To counter this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the past service of the petitioners in the erstwhile Manipur Agricultural College ought to be counted for purpose of payment of pension relying upon the decision No. 3 of the Government of India incorporated in Chapter - III, Qualifying Service of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "2. It had been represented that this is causing hardship to the concerned employees who in some cases had considerable length of service in such bodies. This question has, therefore, been carefully considered and it has been decided that the service rendered in the Central autonomous bodies by the employees who left the service of those bodies any time prior to the their take-over by the Central Government, and who later on joined service under the Central Government, with or without break, will be allowed to be counted towards pension and or/gratuity to the extent admissible under the rules at the time of such person retire or retired from Government service, the period of break, if any, being condoned. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the gratuity/employer's contribution received in respect of the service rendered in the autonomous bodies will be refunded to the Government with simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of receipt to the date of refund." However, in the absence of any material to show that the erstwhile Manipur Agricultural College was a Central autonomous body, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners can not be accepted and upheld. The counsel for the petitioners has not produced any material on record in this regard. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Central Agricultural University has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Council of Educational Research & Training v. Shyam Babu Maheshwari & ors., reported in : (2011) 6 SCC 412 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the earlier ruling that once an employee has opted for CPF scheme, his exercise of option is final and he is not entitled to change over to pension scheme because the two schemes are entirely different. There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that since the petitioners have opted for C.P.F., they can not be permitted to switch over to pension scheme. There is no averment in the counter affidavit about such option being offered by the Central Agricultural University to the petitioners. There is no need of going into the issue further and it is suffice to say that since the petitioners have not served for at least ten years as required under the rules for payment of pension, they are not, even if C.C.S. (Pension) Rules are applicable, entitled to pension. Moreover, the petitioners have been paid all that they are entitled, according to the Central Agricultural University, as per rules applicable to them without any protest. Hence, the petitioners have no good case and their petitioners are liable to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid observation and finding, the writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 323 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 320 of 2006 are dismissed. No order as to cost.