JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction upon the concerned respondents for making payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues which has not been paid to them in spite of the fact that in Letter No.24/Bha 4-01/06 Ja Shi 146 dated 05.2.2008, issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, it has been clearly stipulated that the retrenchment period of Adult Education Supervisor from 1978-92 will be treated as continuity in service for the purpose of payment of pension and other retiral dues. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor, after completion of due process of appointment by Director, Adult Education, Government of Bihar vide order dated 25.04.1980. On being appointed, Petitioner No. 1 joined the service on 12.5.1980, whereas Petitioner No.2 joined on 27.2.1979 in the department of Adult Education on the post of Supervisor, Adult Education. After a gap of time, the Adult Education Programme was closed and petitioners were retrenched from their services and as a result, Petitioner No.1 worked from 12.5.1980 to 15.6.1992 and Petitioner No.2 worked from 27.2.1979 to 30.6.1992 in Adult Education Department. Subsequently, the issue of retrenchment was taken up by their Association and by Order dated 06.5.1998, issued by the Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna, the services of the petitioners were ordered to be absorbed which was in compliance to the Order dated 24.05.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5036 of 1992 and MJC No.2884 of 1996 and 3172 of 1996. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 06.5.1998, the petitioners were absorbed and posted as Supply Inspector in the department of Food and Supply, Government of Bihar. Subsequently after bifurcation, the petitioners were also absorbed along with others and posted as Supply Inspector, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. After attaining the age of superannuation, Petitioner No.1 retired from his service as Supply Inspector, Tundi, Dhanbad. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein the State has taken a specific stand in Paragraph No.s 11, 12 and 13 which are quoted as under. “11. That it is stated and submitted that as per Rule 58 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules condition of qualification of pension are: i. The service must be under Government ii. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein the State has taken a specific stand in Paragraph No.s 11, 12 and 13 which are quoted as under. “11. That it is stated and submitted that as per Rule 58 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules condition of qualification of pension are: i. The service must be under Government ii. The employment must be substantive and permanent iii. The service must be paid by Government. 12. It is stated and submitted that as per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rule pension will be paid to the employee only after completing ten years of regular service. In the present case the petitioner no. 1 has been reappointed and retired on 30.11.2012 and the petitioner no.2 retired on 30.1.2013, therefore they have completed only four years nine months and four years eleven service with the department and therefore they are not entitled for pensionary benefits except general provident fund, group insurance and unutilized leave. 13. That it is stated and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order on 28.03.2008 in LPA No. 188/2004, referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the services of the person working in a scheme is not admissible for the pensionary benefits.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not paid their pension and gratuity for which they are legally entitled in the light of the order as contained in Memo No. 1962 dated 19th July, 2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar. Learned counsel further contended that in the said memo, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioners on account of abolition of posts and loss of appointment owing to reduction of posts in the department cannot be deprived of their pension and other retiral dues. However, petitioners have not been paid their pension etc. for which they are legally entitled. 6. Learned counsel for the State reiterates its stand mentioned in the counter affidavit and contended that as per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, pension is payable only after completion of 10 years of regular service and Petitioner No.1 was reappointed on 14.02.2008 and retired on 30.11.2012, whereas Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the same day, i.e. 14.02.2008 and he has retired on 30.01.2013. Therefore, both the petitioners have not completed minimum required period of service for eligibility of pension, i.e. 10 years. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner No.1 has already been paid Leave Encashment amount to the tune of Rs.2,69,720/- and the amount towards GIC and General Provident Fund. Similarly Petitioner No.2 has received G.P.F. and Leave Encashment amount etc. it has been further contended by the learned counsel that in the absorption order as contained in Memo No. 824 dated 30.5.2007, it was clearly mentioned in Clause 11 that the absorption in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Jharkhand will be treated as new appointment, as such the claim of the petitioners raised in the instant application is devoid of merit. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the order of absorption itself stipulates that the absorption in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Jharkhand will be treated as new appointment and from the record it appears that Petitioner No.1 has completed about 4 years 9 months of service with the Department of Food and Civil Supplies whereas Petitioner No.2 has rendered service of 4 years 11 months with the said department. In the case of Parmeshwar Nanda etc. vs. State of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 146, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Rule 59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules contemplates the conditions that are required for the service to be pensionable and the first condition is that the service must be under the government, secondly, it must be substantive and permanent and thirdly, it must be paid by the Government. Para-21, 23 & 27 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:- “21. The entire case is based upon Rule 59 of the Rules and the Circular dated 12th August, 1969 of the erstwhile State of Bihar. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Rule 59 of the Rules empowers the State Government to declare any specified kind of service rendered by one in a non-gazetted service to qualify for pension, provided, that the salary is paid from the general revenue. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Rule 59 of the Rules empowers the State Government to declare any specified kind of service rendered by one in a non-gazetted service to qualify for pension, provided, that the salary is paid from the general revenue. Rule 58 of the Rules contemplates the conditions that are required to be satisfied for services to be pensionable. Herein, as it has been reiterated before, first condition is that the service must be under the Government; second, that it must be substantive and permanent; and third, that it must be paid by the Government. 23. If the first and second conditions mentioned in Rule 58 of the Rules are not satisfied, the State Government can declare any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity to qualify for pension. The Circular dated 12th August, 1969 deals with pensionary benefits to a temporary Government servant. The appellants were never appointed by the Government either on a temporary or on permanent basis. The appellants were engaged under the Project i.e. a scheme, therefore, the benefit of such a Circular cannot be claimed by the appellants. Still further, sub-rule (1) of Rule 59 of the Rules empowers the State to declare any specific kind of service to qualify for pension. The notification for absorption circulated on 30th May, 2007 and the subsequent letter of appointments do not contain any condition that the services rendered by the appellants under the Project shall qualify for pension. The policy decision contemplates that it is a fresh appointment and no benefit either of seniority or pay protection shall be given. The appellants have not disputed such condition of appointment having been appointed under such policy decision vide the notification dated 30th May, 2007. The Circular has not granted pensionary benefits. In the absence of any specific condition in the Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to the erstwhile employees of the Project. The appellants cannot turn around to say that the services rendered by them under the Project shall be counted for pension. In the absence of any specific condition in the Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to the erstwhile employees of the Project. The appellants cannot turn around to say that the services rendered by them under the Project shall be counted for pension. The Circular dated 12th August, 1969 is not even remotely applicable to the employees appointed under the Project as the very nature of the appointment was for a specific purpose and not for an unlimited period of time. 27. Since the appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension. We, thus, do not find any error in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.” 8. From the record, it appears that the petitioners were absorbed as fresh appointees without any pay protection as stipulated in Clause 11 of the order as contained in Memo No. 824 dated 30.5.2007; as such, in my considered opinion the duration of their past service will not be considered for the purpose of pension. Respectfully relying on the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda (Supra), I refrain myself from issuing any mandamus upon the respondent authorities. It goes without saying that so far as the other retiral dues are concerned; the same has already been paid to the petitioners as stated in the counter affidavit which has not been denied by the petitioners. 9. As a result thereof, the instant application is dismissed.