5. The Court has certain reservation and difficulty in extending the reasoning which may have weighed in matter of grant of pension to Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh, specially in the background that the petitioner is challenging the reasoning, which has been given by the Additional Director in impugned Annexure-1. Attention of the Court, however, has been drawn to a decision which has been rendered by the Court in C.W.J.C No. 5570 of 1999, which is dated 12th April, 2001. It is the case of Hem Chandra Jha, where an identical issue emerged, whether the person could be denied grant of pension, if he had not completed 15 years of service in terms of Rule 58 read with Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules but it is also not disputed that the State Government in its wisdom vide Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980 reduced this service period to 10 years uniformly for temporary or permanent employees. Even in the case of Hem Chandra Jha, State raised a defense that the benefit of pension with a minimum qualifying period of 10 years will only be prospective and a person retiring or leaving service of the State before 31st March, 1980 cannot avail of such a chance but the Court after taking into consideration all these aspects including the provisions contained in Rule 109 of the Pension Rules came to a considered opinion that since Hem Chandra Jha has superannuated only on 31.8.1997, therefore, in terms of Clause 20 of
