Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1185 (PAT)

Birendra Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2000-10-18

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, NAGENDRA RAI

body2000
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated the 6th of September, 2000, passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant for quashing the Government letter dated 22.1.1962 transferring his service to the Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd. as well as for payment of retiral dues in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules treating him as a retired Government servant, has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Treasury Clerk in the Patna Treasury in the year 1955. Thereafter, he was appointed in 1959 as Accountant-cum-Store Keeper in the Radio Component Scheme run by the Government of Bihar in the department of Industries. While he was working on the said post under the Industries Department of the Government of Bihar, the Government decided to transfer some of the Schemes including Radio Component Scheme in which the appellant was employed, along with their assets and liabilities, to the Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Patna, (for short the Corporation) vide letter dated 22.1.1962, which provides, inter-alia, that the temporary staff will be absorbed in the Corporation and the permanent employees shall be placed at the disposal of the Corporation on foreign service. The appellant continued in the service of the Respondent-Corporation and by efflux of time superannuated in the year 1991 and took retiral benefits as an employee of the Corporation. 3. It is asserted on behalf of the appellant that after his retirement he approached the State Government for paying retiral dues by treating him as a State Government employee but no decision was taken. Thereafter, he filed the present writ application on 9.3.1999, which, as stated above, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Nowhere in the writ petition, it has been stated that the appellant was the permanent employee of the State Government. The appellant right from 1962 till his superannuation in 1991 continued in the service of the Corporation and, thereafter, he took retiral benefits from the Corporation. Now, he claims that he should be treated as a Government employee and he should be paid retiral dues under the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules , which are applicable to the Government employees. Now, he claims that he should be treated as a Government employee and he should be paid retiral dues under the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules , which are applicable to the Government employees. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application on two grounds; firstly on the gound of delay and secondly that the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the sense that having taken the benefit as an employee of the Corporation, he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of a Government employee under the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules . 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lien of the appellant was never terminated by the State Government and as such he continued to be an employee of the State Government for all practical purposes and by reason of his having been agitating the matter since 1992, on the ground of delay, the writ application cannot be dismissed. 6. We are unable to agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. As stated above, nowhere it has been stated that he was a permanent Government employee and as such in terms of the order the State Government, his service was absorbed as an employee of the Corporation. The fact remains that the appellant continued to be the employee of the Corporation since 1962 and retired as such in the year 1991 and he also took retiral benefits from the Corporation. Now, he cannot be allowed to say that he should be treated as an employee of the State Government. 7. The delay defeats the right. The equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is available to those, who are vigilant and not for those, who are sleepy and indolent thinking that they can knock the door of this court at any time at their sweet-will irrespective of the fact that a long period has elapsed after the cause of action having arisen, for which the lis has been filed in this court. The appellant retired in 1991 and even if his case is accepted that he agitated the matter before the Government in the year 1992, then he should have approached this court within a reasonable time and not after about eight years. The appellant retired in 1991 and even if his case is accepted that he agitated the matter before the Government in the year 1992, then he should have approached this court within a reasonable time and not after about eight years. The merit of the case and conduct of the appellant coupled together disentitle the appellant from getting any relief from this court. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.