Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 599 (PAT)

Kailash Singh v. Bihar State Forest Devp. Corp.

2008-04-12

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together under the heading for admission and are therefore being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners of both the writ petitions are employees of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act but fully owned and controlled by the State of Bihar. 3. The only difference between the two petitioners is that Kailash Singh and Shambhu Prasad the petitioners in the first case have been made to retire on 30th September, 2007 whereas the petitioner in the other case Hari Narayan Singh has been made to retire on 31.3.2007. 4. The main issue in these cases is whether the service conditions of the petitioners as employees of the Corporation as existing on 30th September, 2007 and 31st March, 2007 require superannuation at the age of 58 years or 60 years. 5. On facts it is found that by a proper resolution the Corporation had adopted the service conditions as applicable to the Officers and Employees of the State Government in respect of its own employees till the independent service conditions are framed in due course. The exact wordings of the resolution dated 24.3.1975 are available in Annexure-2 of the first writ petition. There is no dispute that up-till-now the Corporation has not framed its own rules and conditions of service. Prior to 24.3.2005 the employees of the State Government had 58 years as the age of retirement by way of service conditions but by an order dated 24.3.2005 it was enhanced to 60 years. 6. In that view of the matter the decision taken by the Corporation on 24.3.1975 contained in Annexure-2 to the first writ petition and considering the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Lala Nand Kumar vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited reported in 2008(1) PLJR 579 it has to be held that the employees of the Corporation also became entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. 7. 7. In the special facts of this case it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that although the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 95th meeting held on 30th September, 2005 consciously adopted the decision of the State Government extending the age of retirement of its employees as 60 years but in the next meeting on 10.1.2006 another decision was taken that the decision taken on 30.9.2005 Shall not be implemented until clearance is given by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar. On that basis it has been submitted that at least from 10.1.2006 the employees are not entitled to get the benefit of extended age of superannuation. 8. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment reported in the case of Lala Nand Kumar (supra) it has to be held that the service condition of the employees of the present Corporation also changed as soon as it was changed for the Government Employees and hence the changed service conditions would continue to govern the employees of the Corporation as per earlier resolution dated 24.3.1975 itself unless the rules are framed and approved by the Corporation relating to conditions of service of its employees. That has not been done as yet and in view of discussions made above it can safely be held that the decision of the Board of Directors dated 30th September, 2005 as well as that taken on 10.1.2006 do not amount to framing of rules of service conditions for their employees and therefore cannot create any difficulty in the way of the employees of the Corporation in getting benefit of enhanced age of superannuation at 60 years of age. 9. The matter can be viewed from another aspect also. On 30th September, 2005 the Board of Directors has consciously approved and adopted the decision of the Government of Bihar and that resolution has not been set aside by any other decision. The resolution in the next meeting of the Board of Directors held on 10.1.2006 merely requires the Corporation to stay the implementation of earlier resolution till instructions are received from the Bureau of Public Enterprises. The stay over grant of benefits to which the employees are entitled on account of service conditions is a matter different from entitlement itself. The resolution in the next meeting of the Board of Directors held on 10.1.2006 merely requires the Corporation to stay the implementation of earlier resolution till instructions are received from the Bureau of Public Enterprises. The stay over grant of benefits to which the employees are entitled on account of service conditions is a matter different from entitlement itself. The employees of the Corporation became entitled to the benefit of increased date of superannuation without any action required from the Corporation and further by a positive decision on 30th September, 2005 because no service rules have yet been framed by the Corporation. 10. In view of aforesaid discussions this court finds no option but to follow the decision of the Division Bench discussed above and in that light both the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that the petitioners of both the writ petitions are entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. Hence the orders superannuating them from service at the age of 58 years shall stand quashed and they shall be reinstated in service and allowed to continue till 60 years as per prevailing service conditions. 11. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.