D.G.R. Patnaik, J.@mdashThe appellant Blndeshwarl Singh had worked as an Assistant Teacher from 24.8.1966 to 31.10.1971 in the Jain Hind High School, Tendua, Gaya, which was a sanctioned Government recognized school. He resigned from the service of the said School on 31.10.1971 and joined an unrecognized school, namely, Janata High School on 1.11.1971. The school which he joined later was granted partial recognition on 1.1.1972. The appellant claimed that the Head Master of the school where he worked earlier had granted him leave for the period from 1.11.1971 to 6.2.1972. Since he had worked in the former school till 31.10.1971 and joined service in the second school on the very next day i.e. 1.11.1971, there was no break in service and by virtue of the fact that the second school was granted recognition by the Government as sanctioned school, he had qualified for pension and gratuity for the entire period he served, including the period served in the former school. His prayer for issuance of revised pension payment order after taking into account his past service from 24.8.1966 to 31.10.1971 was rejected by the Senior Account Officer, Office of the Accountant-General, Bihar and Jharkhand (respondent No. 4) by order dated 6.6.2003. As against this order, the appellant moved the High Court by filing a writ petition being WP (S) No. 4234 of 2003. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 13.1.2005. Challenging the same the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. Before the learned single Judge, the learned Counsel for respondent had opposed the writ petitioner''s claim on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from service on 31.10.1971 from recognized school and joined an unrecognized school thereafter. The Government Circular No. 636, dated 18.7.1992 which applies to the petitioner, stipulates that if a teacher working in a sanctioned school Joins an unrecognized school, the break in service will not be condoned and the previous service will not be counted for the purpose of pension even if the unrecognized school was subsequently granted recognition by the Government. Therefore, the past service of the petitioner in the former school from 24.8.1966 cannot be counted for the purpose of pension.
3. Reiterating the same grounds made before the learned single Judge, Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant would insists that:
(a) the appellant before submitting his resignation in the former school had sought for permission to join the second school in the post of Head Master and on such permission being granted, he joined the second school on 1.11.1971 after having served in the former school till 31.10.1971;
(b) that the appellant had applied to the Head Master of the former school through the Secretary for sanction of leave without pay from 1.11.1971 to 6.2.1972 and his leave was sanctioned by the Head Master of the former school on 6.2.1972;
(c) that the fact that the appellant had served under the former school from 24.8.1966 to 31.10.1971 and in the later school from 1.11.1971 and continued to remain in service till retirement on 31.7.2001 was verified and confirmed by the District Education Officer;
(d) that since the period between 1.11.1971 to 6.2-1972 was sanctioned as leave without pay, it has to be deemed that the appellant was in continuous service without any break and as such he is entitled to pensionary benefits computed on the basis of the service commencing from 24.8.1966 till the date of his superannuation.
4. As against this, Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submitted that the appellant cannot claim any benefit of his past service for the purpose of pension on account of prohibition contained in the Government Circular No. 636, dated 18.7.1992.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent would further argue that the purported leave granted to the appellant on 6.2.1972 by the Head Master of the former school cannot be considered to be valid since on the date of sanction, the appellant was admittedly not in service under the Head Master of the former school.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the counsel. Admittedly, after having worked from 24.8.1966 to 31.10.1971 in the former school, the appellant had tendered his resignation and thereafter joined an unrecognized school though much later, the school was granted recognition on 1.1.1972. Admittedly, the appellant''s condition of service is governed by the Service Rules, Circulars and Orders issued by the State Government from time to time. On such Circular referred to as Circular No. 636, dated 18.7.1992 stipulates that if a teacher working in a sanctioned school joins an unrecognized school, the break in service will not be condoned and the previous service will not be counted for the purpose of pension even if the unrecognized school may have subsequently obtained recognition from the Government.
7. The appellant has placed strong reliance on the purported leave sanctioned to him on 6.2.1972 by the Head Master of the former school for the period between 1.11.1971 to 6.2.1972. Apparently, the purported sanction of leave was post facto and for the period during which the appellant was not in service under the Head Master of the former school, he had sanctioned the leave. Under such circumstances, the Head Master of the former school could not have validly sanctioned leave to the appellant after the appellant had left service under him. Since admittedly, the appellant had tendered his resignation on 31.10.1971 itself and had joined service in the unrecognized school on 1.11.1971, he cannot be deemed to have served under both the schools simultaneously from 1.11.1971 to 6.2.1972.
8. The facts clearly indicate that the appellant suffered break in service which cannot be condoned in view of the Government Circular and the previous service of the appellant in the former school cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the appellant cannot rely on the purported leave sanctioned to him on 6.2.1972 by the Head Master of the Jain Hind School from 1.11.71 to 6.2.1972.
9. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
10. I agree.
