JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner assails the order dated 21.07.2020, passed by the State of Uttarakhand, wherein the stand taken by the State is that the State is not bound by the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984 read with communication dated 07.02.1986. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner in consequence of the judgment dated 13.11.2019, rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 611 of 2018, earlier preferred by the petitioner. 2. The background facts may first be noted. The petitioner was serving in Bipin Tripathi Kumaon Institute of Technology, Dwarahat (for short ‘BTKIT’), District Almora, in the capacity of Assistant Registrar. While serving with BTKIT, the services of the petitioner were pensionable under the old pension scheme. He had been confirmed on the post of Assistant Registrar in BTKIT on 04.09.2001. While he was so serving, he on his own found an employment, on contractual basis, as Deputy Registrar of the Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh (for short “MNNIT’). The petitioner routed his application for the post of Deputy Registrar in MNNIT, through proper channel. After his selection, he was appointed as Deputy Registrar (Accounts) in MNNIT, on contract basis for one year. The petitioner’s request for grant of leave without pay on lien for one year to join the post of Deputy Registrar (Accounts) at MNNIT, Allahabad was acceded to; and he was relieved on 16.12.2006. He held lien on his post in BTKIT upto 18.12.2007. His contractual service was extended for one more year, i.e., 18.12.2008. The petitioner’s requested for extension of leave without pay was acceded to upto 18.12.2008 by BTKIT. 3. The petitioner’s services were further extended by MNNIT, Allahabad for a further period of one year from 19.12.2008. The petitioner again sought extension of leave without pay for a further period of one year from BTKIT on 18.12.2008. However, his letter was not responded to by BTKIT. The petitioner was directed to report back to his duty at BTKIT (formerly known as KEC, Dwarahat) vide letter dated 12.05.2009, latest by 30.05.2009, informing him that, otherwise, his services would be treated as a technical resignation as per applicable Rules. The petitioner did not comply with this communication, and consequently, the Principal, KEC Dwarahat, sent another letter on 17.07.2009, informing him that leave without pay has not been extended and, therefore, he must report back to duty. The petitioner did not comply with this communication, and consequently, the Principal, KEC Dwarahat, sent another letter on 17.07.2009, informing him that leave without pay has not been extended and, therefore, he must report back to duty. On 21.07.2019, the petitioner requested the Principal, KEC, Dwarahat for sanction of extra-ordinary leave without pay for the period 19.12.2008 to 18.12.2009, assuring that no further extension of leave would be sought. BTKIT, however, did not respond to this communication. Since the petitioner did not report in his parent organization, the Principal KEC, Dwarahat, informed the petitioner on 11.08.2009, that his service has come to an end with immediate effect as per Rules. 4. The petitioner sought review of the earlier decision to terminate his services. In the meantime, the Board of Governors of MMNIT, in its meeting held on 12.08.2009, regularized the services of the petitioner in MNNIT with effect from the date of his joining, i.e., 19.12.2006. 5. The petitioner submitted his resignation to the Director, BTKIT, Dwarahat on 15.02.2010. On the same day, the petitioner sought the counting of his past service which he had rendered with KEC, Dwarahat from 04.09.1998 to 18.12.2006, i.e., a period of little more than eight years, for the GPF-cum-pension scheme. It appears that certain correspondence ensured between the MNNIT, Allahabad and KEC, Dwarahat, and the Registrar BTKIT, Dwarahat responded in the affirmative, vide letter dated 25.05.2010 to the query – whether BTKIT would be willing to discharge its liability towards pension/GPF/GIS and leave salary for services rendered by the petitioner in the said Institute? 6. The Registrar, MNNIT requested the BTKIT, Dwarahat to send the petitioner’s service book along with one time pro-rata pensionary liability, GPF amount, GIS, leave encashment etc. On 04.12.2010, the petitioner’s contribution to the GPF amount amounting to Rs.1,22,111/- was sent by the Registrar, BTKIT, Dwarahat without interest to the Registrar, MNNIT, Allahabad. The Registrar, MNNIT raised the demand of Rs.11,58,223/-, on the Director, BTKIT, Dwarahat, for pro-rata pensionary liability of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 25.05.2010. The said communication was sent to the State Government for sanction on 28.01.2016. The State Government declined to release the pensionary contribution of the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner with BTKIT, Dwarahat, was less than ten years. The petitioner represented to the Director, BTKIT, Dwarahat for action. The said communication was sent to the State Government for sanction on 28.01.2016. The State Government declined to release the pensionary contribution of the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner with BTKIT, Dwarahat, was less than ten years. The petitioner represented to the Director, BTKIT, Dwarahat for action. However, since, no action was taken, the earlier writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (S/B) No. 611 of 2018, was preferred by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner, while arguing the said writ petition, placed heavy reliance that communication dated 25.05.2010 issued by the Registrar, BTKIT, wherein he stated that BTKIT would be willing to discharge its liability towards the pension/GPF/GIS and leave salary for the services rendered by the petitioner in the said Institute. However, that submission of the petitioner was rejected by the Division Bench in para 14 of the said decision, which reads as follows: It is true that pursuant to the letter addressed by the MNNIT dated 23.04.2010, asking whether the BTKIT, Dwarahat was willing to discharge its liability towards the pension, GPF/GIS and leave salary towards the services rendered by the petitioner in the institute, the BTKIT, Dwarahat, by its letter dated 25.05.2010, had answered as ‘yes’. Acceptance by the institute, to discharge the liability relating to pension/GPF/GIS and leave salary towards the services rendered by the petitioner in the institute, notwithstanding, it was for the State Government to take a decision in this regard, and not for the institute to accede to any such request, since the financial liability for payment of the said amount (which in terms of the demand raised by the MNNIT, Allahabad, in its letter dated 18.02.2011, is for Rs.11,58,233/-) is required to be borne by the State Government. 8. The petitioner sought to place reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984, issued by the Government of India, on the subject of “Mobility of personnel between Central Government Departments and Autonomous Bodies and the Counting of service for pension”, as also, the communication dated 07.02.1986, issued by the Government of India, on the subject “Counting of service for purpose of Pension of employees of Central Government and Central Autonomous Bodies seeking absorption in Autonomous Bodies under the State Governments and vice-versa”. The communication dated 07.02.1986 stated that the decision contained therein shall apply to employees of the State Governments and State Autonomous Bodies moving to Central Government/Central Autonomous Bodies in respect of the State Governments, which were enlisted in para 5 of the said communication. The State of Uttar Pradesh was one of the enlisted States. The order further stated that “these orders shall be extended to the employees of other State Governments as and when they agree to similar reciprocal arrangements”. 9. Para 6 of this communication stated that the said order will apply to employees of the Central Government moving in State Autonomous Bodies, and employees of Central Autonomous Bodies to the State Governments and their Autonomous Bodies mentioned in para-5 above, and vice-versa, who are in service on the date of issue of said orders, irrespective of the date of their absorption. 10. During the hearing of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 611 of 2018, an issue arose whether the Office Memorandum dated 07.02.1986 extends to the State of Uttarakhand in the light of the fact that it is a successor State to the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the State of Uttar Pradesh was specifically covered by the communication dated 07.02.1986. The Division Bench, therefore, left it to the State of Uttarakhand to make its position clear whether the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984, and the communication dated 07.02.1986 were applicable to it, or not. In para nos. 23 and 24 of its judgment, the Division Bench observed as follows: 23. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to examine whether the Government of India O.M. dated 07.02.1986, which has been made applicable to autonomous bodies under the Government of Uttar Pradesh, would also apply to autonomous bodies under the Government of Uttarakhand, for these are all matters for the Government of Uttarakhand to examine in the first instance. The letter of the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, dated 28.01.2016, makes no reference to the Government of India O.M. dated 07.02.1986, and since the said letter was issued before the 2018 Act was made, he could not have made any reference thereto in his letter dated 28.01.2016. 24. The letter of the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, dated 28.01.2016, makes no reference to the Government of India O.M. dated 07.02.1986, and since the said letter was issued before the 2018 Act was made, he could not have made any reference thereto in his letter dated 28.01.2016. 24. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the first respondent to consider whether the Government of India O.M. dated 07.02.1986 is applicable to institutes such as BTKIT, Dwarahat; and whether, in terms of the said O.M., the petitioner is entitled to be extended pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him with the BTKIT, Dwarahat from 04.09.1998 till 18.12.2006. The first respondent shall examine the matter afresh, and take a considered decision on the petitioner’s claim to be paid pensionary benefits in terms of the Government of India O.M. dated 07.02.1986, and communicate its decision to the petitioner with utmost expedition and, in any event, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is, in the aforesaid context, that the State Government has taken the stand that the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984/07.02.1986 are not applicable to it. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned communication is erroneous inasmuch as, the State of Uttarakhand is a successor State to the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, all rights and obligations ensuing in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the division of the State, were adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. 13. In our view, the issue raised by the petitioner is of no relevance, in the face of the true meaning and purport of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984, and in the light of the facts of the present case. Therefore, assuming that the petitioner is right that the State of Uttarakhand is bound to enforce the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984, even then, the petitioner, in our view, has not made out a case for grant of pro-rata pension by BTKIT for the service of about eight years rendered by him with the said organization. Para 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984 sets out several provisions which regulate the movement of Central Government employees to a Central Autonomous Body or vice-versa, and the movement of employees of the Central Autonomous Body to another Central Autonomous Body. Para 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984 sets out several provisions which regulate the movement of Central Government employees to a Central Autonomous Body or vice-versa, and the movement of employees of the Central Autonomous Body to another Central Autonomous Body. For the sake of argument, we may assume that the same equally applies to State Government/State Autonomous Bodies. 14. Clause 3(a)(i) is relevant, and the same reads as under: “(a) In case of Autonomous Bodies where Pension Scheme is in operation. (i) Where a Central Government employee borne on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous body, the services rendered by him under the Government shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government. The pensionary benefits will, however, accrue only if the temporary service is followed by confirmation. If he retires as a temporary employee in the autonomous body, he will get terminal benefits as are normally available to temporary employees under the Government. The same procedure will apply in the case of employee of the autonomous bodies who are permanently absorbed under the Central Government. The Government/autonomous body will discharge its pension liability by paying in lumpsum as a one-time payment, the pro-rata pension/service gratuity/terminal gratuity and DCRG for the service upto the date of absorption in the autonomous body/Government, as the case may be. Lumpsum amount of the pro-rata pension will be determined with reference to commutation table laid down in CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended from time to time.” (emphasis supplied) 15. We may also notice para 6 of the said Office Memorandum, which reads as follows: “These orders will be applicable only where the transfer of the employee from one organization to another was/is with the consent of the organization under which he was serving earlier, including cases where the individual had secured employment directly on his own volition provided he had applied through proper channel/with proper permission of the administrative authority concerned.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Para 3(a)(i) extracted above shows that at the core of the said Office Memorandum is the condition that the absorption of the Central Government employees/Central Autonomous Body employees into Central Government, or other Central Autonomous Body, should be allowed by the original employer of the employee. Para 3(a)(i) extracted above shows that at the core of the said Office Memorandum is the condition that the absorption of the Central Government employees/Central Autonomous Body employees into Central Government, or other Central Autonomous Body, should be allowed by the original employer of the employee. Para 6, as extracted above, also talks about the transfer of one employee from one organization to another “with the consent of the organization under which he was serving earlier, including cases where the individual had secured employment directly on his own volition provided he has applied through proper channel/with proper permission of the authority concerned”. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had secured employment directly, on his own volition after having applied through proper channel/with proper permission from the administrative authority concerned, the requirement of consent of the parent organization for transfer was not attracted. 18. In our view, this submission proceeds on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of, particularly, Clauses 3(a)(i) and 6 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984. The words beginning “including cases where the individual had secured employment directly on his own volition provided he had applied through proper channel/with proper permission of the authority concerned” only seek to include such cases where the employee may have applied to another organization for employment on his own, through proper channel, which is in contradistinction with a case of deputation, or the like. The pre-condition, namely, that the transfer of the employee from one organization to another should be “with the consent of the organization under which he was serving earlier” attaches even to cases where the individual employee has secured employment on his own volition by applying through proper channel. 19. Even if we were to assume that the principle contained in the said Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984 were applicable in the case of the petitioner, on the premise that the communication dated 07.02.1986 extends to the State of Uttarakhand, it would be seen that in the petitioner’s case, he was only permitted to join as Deputy Registrar in MNNIT, Allahabad for a limited period on contract basis, which contract was extended finally upto 18.12.2008, and no more. The petitioner’s request for further extension by a year was not responded to, and he was directed to report back vide communication dated 12.05.2009, latest by 30.05.2009, failing which he was liable to be taken as submitted his technical resignation, as per applicable Rules. The petitioner did not respond, and did not report for his duties at BTKIT, Dwarahat, and renewed his request of extension of leave without pay upto 18.12.2009, which too was not acceded to. In fact, the petitioner was informed on 11.08.2009 by the Principal KEC, Dwarahat, that his service has come to an end. Thus, there was never any consent or approval by BTKIT to the permanent transfer/absorption of the petitioner into MNNIT, Allahabad. The petitioner acted at his own peril, and did not report to his parent organization, i.e., BTKIT, Dwarahat. 20. That being the position, even in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.1984, on which the petitioner placed reliance, he was not entitled to carry his service with BTKIT for the purpose of counting his service with BTKIT for the purposes of pension while serving MNNIT, Allahabad. He cannot claim that BTKIT is bound to transfer/pay his pro-rata pension to MNNIT, Allahabad for about eight years service rendered by him with BTKIT. 21. For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.