Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1870 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Sukhdeva Narayan

2007-12-07

BARIN GHOSH, SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2007
Judgment Barin Ghosh and Samarendra Pratap Singh JJ. 1. Notice in the limitation petition has been served upon the respondent-Writ petitioner but despite such service he has not entered appearance, nor has shown any intention to contest the application for condonation of delay either by appearance or by filing a counter affidavit. 2. Considering the averments made in the limitation petition we are of the view that there was sufficient reason for 23 days delay in preferring the appeal and accordingly we allow the application foi condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Despite service of notice of the appeal, the respondent-writ petitioner has not entered appearance nor has contested the appeal. After having had served for about five years in a private school, the respondent-writ petitioner switched over to the Government service. Subsequent to such switching over, the school in which the respondent-writ petitioner was working was taken over by the Government. Upon attaining the age superannuation on 30.10.1987, the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service. According to the respondent if he could serve for three more months he could have had his full pension. On 1.3.1988 the Government decided to extend the service of a Government employee for a period of three months in order to enable such Government employee to obtain full pension. 4. After having had retired on 31.10.1987, on the strength of the said decision of the Government taken on 1.3.1988, the respondent approached this court by filing a writ petition and thereby contended that he should also be accorded three months extension of his service for the purpose of enabling him to obtain full pension. The fact remains that the service of the respondent was not extended for three months from the date of his superannuation. As on that date there was no policy for extension of service of a Government employee for the purpose of achieving the object of the said decision of the Government taken on 1.3.1988. 5. By the judgment and order under appeal the writ petition was allowed on the ground that such a decision has been taken by the Government, though after the superannuation of the respondent, and, accordingly, it would be appropriate to extend the service of the respondent too, more so when the respondent had served in a private school for five years prior to his joining the Government service which school was subsequently taken over. 6. 6. Admittedly as on 31.10.1987 there was no policy to extend the service of a retiring employee for the purpose of enabling him to obtain full pension. As a result, the service of the respondent was not extended and the fact remains that he did not serve for three more months. Full pension could only be had provided the respondent had served for three months more. The respondent was not in Government employment when he was serving the private school. Rendering of such service cannot count for grant of pension. 7. In those circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order under appeal is set aside and at the same time the writ petition is dismissed.