Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 131 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Badri Narayan Singh

2003-01-30

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. Along with this appeal a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing L.A. No. 3217/2002 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the averments made in the limitation petition, we are of the view that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 3217/ 2002 is allowed. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 12398/2001 which has been filed by the writ petitioner for payment of retiral dues. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ application directing the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee to pay the admitted retiral dues and if there is paucity of funds then they may requisition the aforesaid retiral dues from the State Govt. This appeal has been filed by the State Govt, and the stand of the State is that neither under the provisions of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act nor under the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, the State is liable to pay the retiral dues of the employees of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents did not bring to our notice any provision either under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. A perusal of Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act would show that the State is not liable, to pay the salary as well as retiral dues of the employees of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The State is also not liable to pay grants-in-aid for the said purpose. Thus the State is not liable to pay the retiral dues of the employees of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee and the decision contrary to it as relied upon by the counsel for the respondent writ petitioner in our view does not lay down a correct law. 4. In that view of the matter the direction issued by the learned single Judge to make available the funds by the State Govt. for payment of admitted retiral dues to the writ petitioner, in our view, is not according to law and that direction is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. 5. 4. In that view of the matter the direction issued by the learned single Judge to make available the funds by the State Govt. for payment of admitted retiral dues to the writ petitioner, in our view, is not according to law and that direction is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. 5. It may also be mentioned here that since no provision was brought to our notice by the counsel for the Respondents to show that the employees of the BiharBhoodan Yagna Committee are entitled to pensionary benefits, we are not expressing any opinion over this point as this appeal has been filed only by the State Govt. and we have held that the State Govt. is notliable to pay any amount towards the retiral dues of the employees of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee.