Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 218 (PAT)

Rajendra Lal Das v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-08

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ petitioners, the common question involved is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioners as Extra Clerk in Registry office can be counted for computation of pensionary benefits. 2. Petitioners were initially working as Extra Clerk on selection and were being paid remuneration also from the general revenue of the State. Later they were promoted as temporary clerk and thereafter as permanent clerk. Petitioners after rendering service in the aforementioned capacities retired. Their past service as Extra Clerk were not counted for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits, as such, they filed writ applications. 3. Similar question came up before this Court in the case of Upendra Prasad V/s. State of Bihat, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 822. This Court after elaborate discussion of the Rule contained in Bihar Registration Manual, 1946 and various Rules of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 held that the continuous service rendered by the petitioner as Extra Clerk till his appointment as temporary clerk are to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to pass appropriate order in exercise of the power under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules declaring that the services rendered as Extra Clerk from April, 1957 till the date of appointment as temporary clerk should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and also to ensure payment of consequential revised pension. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the State preferred L.P.A. No. 481 of 1997 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.8.1997 as has been admitted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. However, it appears that the State went to Supreme Court by filing S.L.R against the order passed in L.P.A. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said S.L.P has also been dismissed. In absence of full instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that he is not in a position to confirm as to whether the S.L.R has been dismissed or not. 4. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the Respondents that the judgment of this Court was ever stayed by the Apex Court. In absence of full instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that he is not in a position to confirm as to whether the S.L.R has been dismissed or not. 4. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the Respondents that the judgment of this Court was ever stayed by the Apex Court. Under such circumstances, the principle laid down in the judgment of Upendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar (supra) is to be applied in all other similar cases. It is admitted by the State that the case of the petitioners of the present cases are identical. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court directs that the principle decided in the case of Upendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar (supra) shall also govern the cases of the present petitioners and the Respondents authorities are directed to pass appropriate order in exercise of power under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules declaring that the services rendered by these petitioners as Extra Clerk till the date of their appointment as temporary clerk should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and consequently pass appropriate order for payment of the revised pension to them within two weeks of the reciept/production of a copy of this judgment/order. 6. It is needless to add that in case the Supreme Court upsets the decision in the case of Upendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar (supra) the principle decided by the Apex Court shall also be binding and be applied in the case of the present petitioners. 7. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of.