Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the State.

2. The present contempt petition has been preferred for the compliance of the order dated 04.10.2017 passed in CWJC No. 7231 of 2012 by which direction was given to the respondents to treat the petitioners as having continued in service by clubbing the two periods during which they actually served for the purpose of post retiral benefits without any entitlement of salary and/or seniority during the intervening period, they were out of service.

3. This Court deems it appropriate to incorporate the entire order dated 04.10.2017 in CWJC No. 7231 of 2012 which read as follows:—

“The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to count the service period of the petitioners with effect from their initial appointment made between 1985-37 on the post of Non- Formal Education Supervisors under the Non-Formal Education Project, as the petitioners who have been appointed afresh on the post of Clerk by way of absorption along with several other retrenched Non-Formal Education Supervisors vide a policy decision of Government of Bihar, due to which the service period of all the petitioners are reduced to less than 10 years.

2. The short facts of the case according to the petitioners are that they were appointed on the posts of Supervisor under the Adult and Non-Formal Education Project on 29.06.1985, 26.06.1985, 11.08.1985, 08.01.1986 and 04.05.1987 respectively, and started discharging their duties regularly. However, the Non-Formal Education Project was scrapped after 1990 and the services of the petitioners stood retrenched. Thereafter a policy decision was taken to absorb all the Non-Formal Education Supervisors on different sanctioned and vacant Class III posts and pursuant to which a seniority list of Non- Formal Education Supervisors was published vide letter No. 686 dated 16.04.2010 which included the name of these petitioners. Pursuant to Memo No. 1538 dated 21.08.2010 issued by the Department of Human Resources Development the petitioners submitted their joining before the respondent District Magistrate on 30.08.2010 and started discharging their duties.

3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for pension by also taking into account the period worked between their initial appointment and their retrenchment in addition to the period they had worked after their absorption on and from 30.08.2010. It is submitted that the respondents are not justified in treating the absorption fresh appointment by not considering the earlier period they had worked prior to their retrenchment. In this regard attention has been Invited to the provisions of Rule 103(d) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), according to which abolition of posts or loss of appointment owing to reduction of establishment constitutes an exception in the matter of interruption in the service of a Government servant entailing forfeiture of his past service. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed in CWJC No. 20780 of 2010 and CWJC No. 20801 of 2010 wherein the said provision of Rule 103(d) has been interpreted in the context of Adult Education Programme, expressing the view that the period between retrenchment and subsequent absorption would not amount to interruption of service for the purposes of Rule 103(d) of the Rules.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. He fairly accepts that the issue at hand stands covered by the judgment dated 19.04.2011 in CWJC No. 20780 of 2010 and CWJC No. 20801 of 2010, relied upon by the petitioners.

5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. This Court in its judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed in CWJC No. 20780 of 2010 and CWJC No. 20801' of 201