Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1152 (JHR)

Hanif Ansari v. Gumla Municipality

2009-08-19

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2.The petitioner who retired from the service of Gumla Municipality on 03.10.1999 as a Tax Collector, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to fix and pay pension and gratuity which he is entitled to get in the light of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Rules, 1987. 3.The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled for the benefits of pension and other retrial benefits in terms of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Rules, 1987 as well as the letter dated 11.04.1996, issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, communicated to all concerned, which envisages that all the employees of all the Municipalities and Notified Area Committees would get the same benefits as that of Government employees. 4.According to the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid letter of Government dated 11.04.1996, Hazaribagh Municipality is already paying pensionary benefits and other allowances to its retired employees. It is said that the petitioner, after his retirement on 31.10.1999, applied for payment of pension as per the aforesaid Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Rules, 1987 but he has not been given the said benefits. 5.On the other hand, the stand of the respondents, as it appears from the counter affidavit, that as per Rule-4 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Rules, 1987, it is necessary to exercise option for pension in place of Contributory Provident Fund, in writing in a prescribed format within a period of 90 days from the date of framing of this Rule and if no option is received within the period so fixed, it would be deemed that the employee opted to retain existing Contributory Provide Fund Scheme. 6.It is said that the petitioner never exercised his option in terms of Rule-4 of the aforesaid Rule and only after he retired on 31.10.1999, then after 12 years of the promulgation of the aforesaid Rule has made an application. It is also stated that the petitioner has already received and withdrawn the entire Provident Fund amount including the Contributory share of the Municipality and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Moreover, the petitioner has already been paid all his legal dues by the Municipality. This fact stated in the counter affidavit has not been denied or controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Moreover, the petitioner has already been paid all his legal dues by the Municipality. This fact stated in the counter affidavit has not been denied or controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 7.Considering the rival stand of the parties and after going through the Rule – 4 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Rules, 1987, I find that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this writ petition for the following reasons:- i. He applied for pension at a belated stage i.e. after more than 12 years from the date of promulgation of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Rules, 1987 though the period fixed for making application was only 90 days from the date of promulgation of the Rule; ii. The Municipality could have contributed its share, if any, in one of the Accounts of the petitioner i.e. either in the Contributory Provide Fund or in the Pension Fund. The contribution of Municipality against the share of the Municipality was already deposited in the Contributory Provident Fund of the petitioner and which he already withdrew and, therefore, now he cannot claim of pensionary benefits. iii. Since the petitioner did not avail the pension scheme and continued to remain in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, therefore, his request to opt for pension scheme after his retirement and that also after receiving all the legal dues including the amount of Provident Fund, cannot be accepted. 8. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.