ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2013, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-5, wherein, prayer for counting the previous services rendered by the petitioner in the Government Middle School, as Teacher from 10.05.1967 to 21.02.1979 been rejected. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that, the petitioner having the requisite qualification, was appointed by the competent authority as an Assistant Teacher in Barhi Middle School, Keredari, Hazaribagh in the sanctioned vacant post vide appointment letter dated 20.04.1967 and in pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined the said post on 10.05.1967. After joining the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties in different places. When the vacancies arose in the High School for Sanskrit Teacher, the petitioner having the requisite qualification applied for the said post and accordingly, he was appointed in the Government High School and he joined on 22.02.1979 in the Government High School in the Hazaribagh district after being relieved on 21.02.1979, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. The petitioner sent his resignation letter to the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh and the same was accepted by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh. The petitioner retired with effect from 30.06.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement, the respondent decided the pension of the petitioner excluding the services rendered by the petitioner in the Middle School as regular appointees from 10.05.1967 to 21.02.1979. The petitioner approached the authorities but it was not considered by the authorities, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ application being W.P. (S) No. 1931 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2012, directing the petitioner to file representation before the Respondent No. 4, who in turn, will decide the claim of the petitioner. However, in pursuance to contempt case (C) No. 1088 of 2012, the respondent authority passed an order dated 20.03.2013, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application, refusing to count the total period rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of deciding the pension and other pensionary benefits, which is impugned in this writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, learned J.C. to Sr. 3. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. I, appearing for the Respondent-State as well as Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5. 4. Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-authorities have not considered the relevant Section 56 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, which reveals that previous services rendered by the concerned Government employee would be considered for deciding the pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions reported in 2015 (1) JLJR 24 and 2008 (4) JLJR 443 . 5. Ms. Ruchi Rampura, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. I., appearing for the Respondent-State reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner not produced any documents regarding his previous services from the Middle School through any competent authority and therefore, his claim for continuation of service was not considered and the same been rejected by the detailed and reasoned order. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-State referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Hitkishore Goswami passed in Civil Appeal No. 1892 of 2015 and the decision of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand & others, dated 20.03.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3947 of 2012. 6. The moot point raised in the instant writ application is as to whether upon resignation of the petitioner from the post of Teacher in the Middle School, Barhi, Keredari, Hazaribagh after rendering about 12 years from 1967 to 1979, the services rendered therein, whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of pension under the Jharkhand Pension Rules? The very same issue was raised before this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of Madan Mohan Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand & others, dated 20.03.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3947 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 decided in the negative. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 101 and Rule 135 of the Pension Rules. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 101 and Rule 135 of the Pension Rules. On plain reading of the aforesaid Rule, there is no doubt or debate that the pension is accruable to a person, who resigned from the Government service under Rule 135. But so far as Rule 101 of the Pension Rules is concerned, it envisages that resignation entails forfeiture of past service, therefore, Rule 135 of the said Rules makes an exception that if the person resigning completed 25 years of qualifying service and is a Government servant as mentioned in Rule 5, he would be entitled to retiring pension. Therefore, reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rule 56 does not come to his aid. On the other hand also, no case been made out by the petitioner that he is entitled to invalid person, as are permissible under Rule 107 read with Section III under Chapter VI of the said Rules, as it is not evident from the pleadings on record that there been a declaration of invalidity or incapacity of the petitioner, which led to his resignation in the year 1971. So far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no quarrel over the ratio and propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing and it is not a case of mere counting of qualifying service, but, it is a case, whether past service can be counted after resignation? It is a trite law with a right to claim pension is governed by the statute. An employee, therefore, no right to claim any benefit in relation to pension de hors the statute. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however vehemently urged that keeping in view the petitioner's unblemished service record with the State, having no break in service, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefits flowing from his past and present services including its continuity. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 20.03.2013, passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-5 does not warrant any interference by this Court and the writ petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.