Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ respondent no. 2 – appellant against the order dated 12.11.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 15761 of 2013.

3. The case of the writ-petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as a Daily Wage (Literate) Mazdoor in the office of the appellant on 18.4.1985. Having passed the prescribed test and having cleared the interview, he was appointed as Ex-Cadre Assistant on 18.3.2004 and retired on 31.10.2010. Having worked continuously for more than 25 years in office, he filed representations before the appellant, however, finally by the impugned letter dated 10.7.2012 the writ petitioner was held to be not entitled for grant of pension on account of the fact that the period of his service was less than 10 years. The writ petitioner as a result challenged the same by filing a writ application (C.W.J.C. no. 15761 of 2013) praying therein that the letter dated 10.7.2012 debarring the writ petitioner from pension on account of his regular service being less than 10 years be quashed and the pension amount be determined as he had retired on 31.10.2010.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents.

5. Taking into account the material on record and the submissions made, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 12.11.2014 directed the respondents to consider the period of service rendered by the writ-petitioner from May 1988 to 10th August 1994, to add the same to the period of writ petitioner’s service from 18.3.2004 to 31.10.2010 and, thereafter, to calculate the period and compute and release the pension without unnecessary delay. The writ application was disposed of.

6. It is against this order that the writ respondent no. 2 – appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner was not entitled for pension in view of the fact that he had not completed 10 years of regular service as permanent employee. For the period from 1988 to 1994, although the writ petitioner had worked as regular employee but the order of regularization was recalled and the petitioner was again placed as Daily Wage Employee. The writ petitioner had rendered 18 years 11 months as Casual Literate Mazdoor/Daily Wager and only 6 years 7 months 13 days as a permanent employee and thus in the light of the Bihar Gazette dated 23.9.2009 as per which a minimum period of ten years regular service is required for getting pension, the writ-petitioner was not entitled for the same. It was submitted that Rules 59 and 63 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 were not applicable in case of the writ petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner – respondent submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge was a well-reasoned order which had taken into consideration Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules as also the Government letter dated 12.8.1969. There is no illegality in the said order and there being no merit in the instant appeal, the same be dismissed.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the facts not in dispute are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage (Literate) Mazdoor on 18.4.1985 and was regularized on 1.5.1988. In view of the order dated 7.6.1994 he was designated as Assistant on ad-hoc basis; however, the said order being recalled subsequently, the writ petitioner reverted back as a Daily Wage Employee of the Court. He was later selected and appointed as Ex-Cadre Assistant vide memo no. 2675 dated 18.3.2004 and finally retired from service on 31.10.2010.

10. It is the categorical case of respondent no. 2- appellant that a minimum of 10 years of service as a regular employee is required to qualify for pension and the same has been fixed by the Government of Bihar. At this stage Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which deals with the cond