Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1073 (JHR)

Salestina Tuti v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-27

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned JC to GP-I. 2. While on the one hand the petitioner claims to have worked continuously right from 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 from 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., the respondents on the other hand at paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit have stated that during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 she merely worked as part time escorting rnaid servant and that she performed her duty from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., escorting children from their respective homes to the School and again taking them back from the school from 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. 3. According to the petitioner, however, she worked full time and therefore, she does deserve pension under the provisions of Section 59(3) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which reads thus : "The State Government after careful consideration have, therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the temporary or officiating Government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than 15 years, it will be considered as pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules." 4. From the own showing of the respondents as has been mentioned in the last line of paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984, the petitioner served as a part time escorting maid servant and for which she had been paid remuneration. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2137 of 1994 (R) which was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and the authority was directed to dispose off the same by a reasoned order. The reasoned order is Annexure 2 by which the representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had put in only 1 year 25 days of service as a fresh appointee from 6.12.1984 to 31.12.1986 as stated in paragraph 7 to the counter affidavit. In other words the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner and the aforesaid admission on the part of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had worked as part time escorting maid servant during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 appears not to have been taken into consideration. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis. Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 the petitioner is given liberty to once again file a a representation before the authorities concerned who will now finally decide by giving reasons as to whether the aforesaid period rendered as a part time escorting maid servant should, under the provisions of Rule 59 of Bihar Pension Rules count for making the petitioner eligible for the reliefs claimed for by her in this writ petition. Petitioner shall file the representation within a month whereafter the respondent authority shall dispose off the same in accordance with law and by a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said representation. 6. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is disposed off.