Purnendu Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Dr. Mankeshwar Siwani, learned AC to AAG-3 appearing on behalf of the State; Mr. Pyush Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court and Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled for pension in terms of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 after having completed 33 years of his service. However, petitioner has been denied the said benefit only on the ground that the Accountant General, Bihar has raised certain query vide letter dated 13.09.2021 addressed to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Civil Court, Gaya and in pursuant to the said query the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Civil Court, Gaya had communicated that petitioner has qualified 33 years of service in accordance with the provision of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. After qualifying the pensionable service period, the petitioner is entitled for pension. The Accountant General, Bihar has again made the same query vide Memo No.1722 dated 14.02.2022 to be clarified by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Civil Court, Gaya.

3. Mr. Pyush Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court has submitted that the query of Accountant General, Bihar is misconceived and clarifies that the Rule 57 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 provides as follows: –

“For a Government servant in inferior service, qualifying service, shall not begin until the Government servant concerned attained the age of 16 years.”

4. For a Government servant in inferior service, qualifying service, shall not begin until the Government servant concerned attained the age of 16 years. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on 02.09.1976. Amendment was brought in Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 by which the age was raised from 16 to 18 years in case of Government employee belonging to the inferior service. Learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the Appendix 5 to the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 the age has been enhanced from 16 to 18 years. He however is not able to give the specific date when the amendment was brought. He next submitted that in any manner the only requirement which has to be taken into considering for fixation of pension of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has completed 33 years of qualifying service in accordance with the amended or un-amended provision with respect to enhancement of age from 16 years to 18 years. In the present case, even after deeming the age of the petitioner to be 18 years at the time of his appointment, he has completed the qualifying service. Otherwise also if it is calculated taking entry in service at the age of 16 years (i.e. on the date of his appointment), the petitioner has rendered 44 years of service from his date of appointment i.e. 02.09.1976.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the Bihar Pension Rules is applicable to the employees of the Bihar Civil Court and the petitioner has admittedly completed 33 years of pensionable service from both the age, (i.e 16 or 18 years) is entitled for fixation of his pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that it would be advisable for the Accountant General, Bihar to fix the pension of the petitioner considering the admitted fact that the petitioner has completed 33 years of service which is maximum requirement for fixation of pension and the petitioner having been completed the same, the query raised by the Accountant General is misconceived.

7. Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General submitted that it would be in the interest of justice that the Accountant General, Bihar, may be directed to fix the pension of the petitioner considering the maximum qualifying period of service being 33 years. In the present case, the petiti