JUDGMENT : (Harish Kumar, J.) Heard Mr. Arif Raza, learned Advocate for the petitioner, duly assisted by Mr. Md. Ataul Haq, and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, learned Advocate for the University. 2. The petitioner claims herself to be the only issue and legal heir of late Professor Sudha Verma (mother) and late Mauti Prasad Verma (father), as per the family list issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction for fixation and payment of all the pre and post retiral benefits, including Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance and GPF of the petitioner’s deceased mother. 3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner, late Professor Sudha Verma served as a Lecturer/Reader in the Department of Philosophy, Patna University from 31.01.1978 till her superannuation upon attaining the age of 62 years on 30.11.2004. On submission of joining of the late mother of the petitioner on 31.01.1987 till 30.09.1995 the University has paid her full salary and also deducted GPF contribution but all of a sudden the University arbitrarily stopped payment of her salary and other benefits with effect from October, 1995 vide letter contained in Memo No. 1416 dated 08.11.1995 and directed her to appear before the Medical Board and the Enquiry Committee. The erstwhile teacher moved this Court in CWJC No. 5988 of 1997 for payment of her salary for the period 08.07.1993 to 07.07.1994, 08.07.1994 to 16.07.1994 and 17.07.1994 to 31.08.1994. The writ petition was disposed off on 26.10.1997 directing the Vice Chancellor, Patna University to consider her claim. The claim of the erstwhile teacher was considered and salary for the different period was settled. 4. It is worthy to note that the mother of the petitioner subsequently preferred another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 735 of 2003 for salary of subsequent period which was disposed off on 02.07.2010 with the similar direction. The Vice Chancellor of the University considering the claim of the petitioner passed a reasoned order on 25.02.2015 which was put to question in CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. The Vice Chancellor of the University considering the claim of the petitioner passed a reasoned order on 25.02.2015 which was put to question in CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that while the erstwhile teacher was waiting for the payment of her due salary and fixation of last pay before her superannuation, she had been diagnosed with serious ailments of Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder and her treatment was started in a reputed hospital of Mumbai. Despite the aforesaid fact, she sent all the necessary pension papers on 22.04.2016 through courier to the Head of the Department of Philosophy, Patna University and the copy of which was also sent to the Registrar of the University, who has received the pension papers and necessary documents. Nonetheless, the claim of the petitioner’s mother for pre and post retial benefits kept pending and in the meanwhile she died on 20.02.2018. 5. It would be also pertinent to note here that while the matter was pending consideration, this Court vide order dated 15.05.2023 directed the University to take a decision in the matter in relation to the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was duly considered by the Vice Chancellor, Patna University after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the same has been negated vide order dated 08.07.2023. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University has arrived at a conclusion that in the light of continuous unathorised absence from October, 1995 onwards till November, 2004, her services will be treated as confiscated. Thus, the question of pension/gratuity does not arise. It is also directed that due to depleted earned leave account, encashment is not admissible. Whatever amount will be in Provident Fund and Group Insurance schemes that may be paid to the nominees as mentioned in service book/successor-cum-petitioner. The petitioner on being aggrieved with the order of the Vice Chancellor, as discussed hereinabove, filed an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2023 seeking quashing of the same. 6. Mr. Raza, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the Vice Chancellor of the University while passing the impugned order has not applied his mind and, in fact, on an incorrect assumption on facts has passed the order confiscating the post retiral benefits. 6. Mr. Raza, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the Vice Chancellor of the University while passing the impugned order has not applied his mind and, in fact, on an incorrect assumption on facts has passed the order confiscating the post retiral benefits. It is also contended that the authority while passing the order of confiscation has misinterpreted Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which is, per se, not applicable. The respondent authorities could not withhold the retiral benefits in absence of any proceeding, muchless the proceeding under the Bihar Pension Rules. The erstwhile teacher superannuated on 30.11.2004 and after 19 years of her retirement and about 6 years of her death, the order of confiscation of her post reitral dues is wholly unjustified, in as much as, the same cannot be passed after retirement of the employee when relationship of the employer and the employee already ceased. 7. Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1923 , wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the employee’s right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. Further reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bindhya Nath Jha & Anr. vs. The Patna Regional Development Authority & Ors. (CWJC No. 5731 of 1982), disposed off on 15.05.1990, wherein the Court held that the disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant comes to an end when he retires. He can be retained in service after his retirement so that a punishment may be imposed on him in a pending disciplinary proceeding. In the case in hand, since there had never been any departmental proceeding nor the erstwhile teacher had ever been suspended or dismissed from service, no order forfeiting the pre and post retiral benefits can be passed by any of the authority, is the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. In the case in hand, since there had never been any departmental proceeding nor the erstwhile teacher had ever been suspended or dismissed from service, no order forfeiting the pre and post retiral benefits can be passed by any of the authority, is the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate representing the University has contended that on account of frequent absent from the classes, the matter has been brought to the knowledge of the controlling officer. On being assigned the reason of poor well being and citing health reasons, a Medical Board was constituted and the erstwhile teacher was directed to appear before it. Initially she did not turn up before the Committee as a result of which, her salary was withheld for disobeying the order. However, she was later on declared medically fit after thorough examination. Since in the meanwhile she filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court; and in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 5988 of 1997, the salary was released after sanctioning the admissible leave as per rules. However, again from October, 1995 onwards till 31.11.2004 i.e., the date of retirement, she was continuously remained on unauthorised leave. On account of her absence and holding no classes, several complaints were lodged by the Head of the Department with the University administration narrating the facts of excessive loss in the conduct of classes, resultantly the syllabus lagged far behind and students suffered a lot. This led to an enquiry leading to a decision to initiate a departmental proceeding. However, on account of the undertaking given by the erstwhile teacher, she was given an opportunity to join in the Directorate of Distance Education. The decision on disbursement of salary of disputed period was to be based on the intimation of controlling officer about her further sanctioning. This led to filing of another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 735 of 2003. 9. In compliance of the order of this Court, in the afore-noted case, the claim of the erstwhile teacher was considered by the Vice Chancellor but it did not find any favour which led to another round of litigation giving rise to CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. 9. In compliance of the order of this Court, in the afore-noted case, the claim of the erstwhile teacher was considered by the Vice Chancellor but it did not find any favour which led to another round of litigation giving rise to CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. The learned Court having heard the parties and taking into consideration the order passed by the Vice Chancellor did not find any infirmity in the impugned order by which the claim of salary of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for a long period. Referring to the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by this Court in CWJC no. 16478 of 2016, Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate thus contended that admittedly the petitioner remained absent for a period from October, 1995 till 31.11.2004 and resultantly the claim of salary for such period has been negated by this Court. 10. Learned Senior Advocate has further taken this Court to article 13 and 9(e) of the statute and submitted that an interruption in the service of a University servant entails forfeiture of his past service. Drawing the attention of this Court to sub-section(3) of Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, he has further highlighted the condition which entails forfeiture of past service on account of interruption. It is thus contended that the claim of the erstwhile teacher was duly considered by the Vice Chancellor pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.05.2023 and on being found that the University is not meant only for paying salary and terminal benefits to the employees, who are appointed for the students; the right of the student should also be protected. If any employee decides not to join the respondent University will have to act for safeguarding the welfare of a student. So merely on the ground that she neither resigned nor was dismissed, her demand cannot be allowed. Accordingly, in the light of the relevant Articles of the Statute and the prescription of the Bihar Pension Rules, the claim raised before this Court has also been turned down by order dated 08.07.2023. Heavy reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Limited & Ors. reported as 2013 (10) SCC 253 . 11. Heavy reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Limited & Ors. reported as 2013 (10) SCC 253 . 11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the parties and also meticulously perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the claim of the erstwhile teacher for salary for the period October 1995 till 30.11.2004 was turned down by the Vice Chancellor of the University on being found that she was continuously on unauthorised leave, which order of the Vice Chancellor also get affirmed in CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. The learned Writ Court while considering the materials available on record and after going through the order passed by the Vice Chancellor did not find any infirmity in the impunged order passed by the Vice Chancellor by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence the issue with regard to unauhtorised absence leading to non-payment of salary came to be settled. 12. Now coming to the question as to whether in absence of any departmental proceeding either before or after superannuation on account of unauthorised absent can induce the University leading to forfeiture and confiscation of the retiral benefits of the employee. While negating the claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits and treating her service as confiscated, the Vice Chancellor of the Patna University has taken note of Articles 13 and 9(e) of the regulation provided under the Statute of the University which reads as follows: “(13) An interruption in the service of a University servant entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases:- (a) Authorised leave of absence, (b) unauthorised absence in continuation of authorised leave of absence so long as the office of the absentee is not substantively filled. If his office is substantively filled, the past service of absence will be forfeited; (c) Suspension immediately followed by reinstatement, which need not be to the same office; (d) Abolition of office or loss of appointment owing to reduction of establishment; (e) Time occupied in transit from one appointment to another, provided that the University servant is transferred under the order of the competent authority. (9) Subject to the provisions of the Act and terms and conditions of transfer of the government servants concerned the service of a University servant may be terminated by the Syndicate on one or more of the following grounds:- (e) continued absence from duty for more than five years.” 13. Admittedly, from perusal of both the Articles, it appears to this Court that an interruption in service of a University servant may give cause to forfeiture of his past service if an employee is not on authorised leave of absence or if he is unauthorised absent in continuation of authorised leave of absence so long as the office of the absentee is not substantively filled. Article 9 also makes it clear that if a University servant remained continued absent from duty for more than five years, the service of the University’s servant may be terminated by the Syndicate. There is no material on record which suggests that the leave of the erstwhile teacher has ever been approved by the controlling authority or the University. Thus, in such circumstances, there is no hesitation for this Court to hold that the erstwhile employee was on unauthorised leave for a petty long time since October 1995 till her retirement. 14. It would be worth noticing here that the University has also adopted the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The afore noted Articles as prescribed in the Statute are seemingly akin to Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which provides identical prescription for forfeiture of past service on account of unauthorised absence leading to interruption in service. Once the University authority decided and concluded it a case of continuous unauthorized absence of the erstwhile teacher, which order also stood sanctified by the learned co-ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 16478 of 2016; This Court is of the opinion that in a case where the government servant is held to be unauthorised absent leading to interruption in service, it certainly entails forfeiture of his past services. 15. It is the admitted position that at no point of time any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the erstwhile teacher, but once she herself chosen to remain absent or voluntarily left her service; whether in such circumstances initiation of departmental proceeding is sine qua non. 15. It is the admitted position that at no point of time any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the erstwhile teacher, but once she herself chosen to remain absent or voluntarily left her service; whether in such circumstances initiation of departmental proceeding is sine qua non. This question has been aptly answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay S. Sathaye (supra), wherein the Court held that the employee has right to abandon the service any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining absent for long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntary abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer. It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate the relevant paragraphs for proper appreciation of the issue: “12. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed as a slave, he has a right to abandon the service any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining absent for long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntary abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer. 13. In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR1961 SC 1567] this Court held as under : (AIR p.1570, para 6) “6. … there would be the class of cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee.” (See also Shahoodul Haque v. Registrar, Coop. Societies [ (1975) 3 SCC 108 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 498 : AIR 1974 SC 1896 ] .) 14. For the purpose of termination, there has to be positive action on the part of the employer while abandonment of service is a consequence of unilateral action on behalf of the employee and the employer has no role in it. Such an act cannot be termed as “retrenchment” from service. (See State of Haryana v. Om Parkash [ (1998) 8 SCC 733 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 262]) 15. Such an act cannot be termed as “retrenchment” from service. (See State of Haryana v. Om Parkash [ (1998) 8 SCC 733 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 262]) 15. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [ AIR 1964 SC 1272 ], while dealing with a similar case, this Court observed : (AIR p. 1275, para 5) “5. … Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and, normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf.” A similar view has been reiterated in G.T. Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. [ (1979) 1 SCC 590 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 76 : AIR 1979 SC 582 ]. 16. In Syndicate Bank v. Staff Assn. [ (2000) 5 SCC 65 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 601] and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [ (2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 965 : AIR 2000 SC 2783 ] this Court ruled that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an enquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to useless formalities. A similar view has been reiterated in Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant [ (2006) 11 SCC 42 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 327] , Chief Engineer (Construction) v. Keshava Rao [ (2005) 11 SCC 229 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 872] and Bank of Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog [ (2009) 9 SCC 462 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 689].” Emphasis supplied 16. This Court is also apprised of the fact after service of absence report by the Head of Department of Philosophy to the University vide P.U. Memo No. G/01 dated 02.01.1999, one Senior Professor was appointed to examine the unauthorised absence of erstwhile teacher. On several notice and reminders, she appeared on 03.06.2000 and explained her position and assured that she would be engaging her class regularly, by submitting a written undertaking. In such circumstances, she had given a chance to resume her duties, with a stipulation that final decision with regard to payment of salary should be taken on compliance of the undertaking; but, thereafter, she did not join her duty till superannuation. 17. In such circumstances, she had given a chance to resume her duties, with a stipulation that final decision with regard to payment of salary should be taken on compliance of the undertaking; but, thereafter, she did not join her duty till superannuation. 17. When a government servant wilfully absents himself/herself from duty for a long period without giving notice to the employer, he/she can not get the pay for period during which he/she remained absent. The erstwhile employee had been given proper opportunity to satisfy the authority and resume her duty, but she did not do so, hence, in no circumstances, she would be entitled to get the premium of her wilful absence or voluntary abandonment of service. 18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the position in law, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 19. However, pursuant to the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 08.07.2023, the amount under the Provident Fund and Group Insurance scheme as well as any other admissible amount, if not paid till date, shall be paid to the petitioner, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.