JUDGEMENT 1. The Additional Director, Industries vide letter dated 6.3.1997 in his communication to the Secretary, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "PIADA") opined that the petitioner (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) is not entitled to pension despite having served the State Government for 11 years 4 months and 10 days because the minimum qualifying service earlier for a temporary employee was 15 years. No doubt, subsequently, an amendment had been brought in the Bihar Pension Rules on 31.3.1980 but this according to the Additional Director would be prospective in nature and the benefit of minimum 10 years of service for pension could not be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking quashing of this Annexure-1 dated 6.3.1997 in the present writ application. 2. Some brief facts are that the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.1990, while serving PIADA. Initially he was appointed under Government service of the Industries Department on the post of Mechanical Foreman on 28.3.1960. He served the State Government at least for 11 years 4 months and 10 days before his service was finally handed over to the respondent-PIADA. Petitioner superannuated from service under PIADA. When he retired he demanded pension from the respondent authorities including the State since his initial appointment was under the State as well as the fact that the later part of his service was rendered under an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. Petitioner pleads discrimination in matter of grant of pension because some other employees including one Mr. Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh and later one Upendra Thakur, after protracted litigations managed to get pension from respondents. In fact the case of Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh traveled to the Hon ble Supreme Court, where the stand of the State refusing pension was negated. Petitioner is seeking parity now from the State is matter of pension. 4. The Court has certain reservation and difficulty in extending the reasoning which may have weighed in matter of grant of pension to Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh, specially in the background that the petitioner is challenging the reasoning, which has been given by the Additional Director in impugned Annexure-1. Attention of the Court, however, has been drawn to a decision which has been rendered by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5570 of 1999, which is dated 12th April, 2001. Attention of the Court, however, has been drawn to a decision which has been rendered by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5570 of 1999, which is dated 12th April, 2001. It is the case of Hem Chandra Jha, where an identical issue emerged, whether the person could be denied grant of pension, if he had not completed 15 years of service in terms of Rule 58 read with Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules but it is also not disputed that the State Government in its wisdom vide Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980 reduced this service period to 10 years uniformly for temporary or permanent employees. Even in the case of Hem Chandra Jha, State raised a defense that the benefit of pension with a minimum qualifying period of 10 years will only be prospective and a person retiring or leaving service of the State before 31st March, 1980 cannot avail of such a chance but the Court after taking into consideration all these aspects including the provisions contained in Rule 109 of the Pension Rules came to a considered opinion that since Hem Chandra Jha has superannuated only on 31.8.1997, therefore, in terms of Clause 20 of the Government Resolution dated 31.7.1980 read with Rule 109 of the Pension Rules held that the period of 10 years was good enough for making the employee eligible for pension. 5. Since the facts and the questions of law raised by the petitioner is identical to the decision of Hem Chandra Jha, the court is bound and inclined to apply the ratio of the said decision to the case of the present petitioner. 6. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Industries Department, they have taken a stand that the Law Department had opined that the matter may be considered by the Finance Department in the light of Hem Chandra Jhas case but knowing the way the State machineries move nothing further has been informed to the Court in this regards. 7. The writ application of the petitioner is allowed, Annexure-1 is quashed and the respondent-State authorities are directed that in light of Hem Chandra Jhas decision, the respondents would be duty bound to treat 10 years of service rendered by the petitioner to be enough for the purposes of grant of pension by the State. 7. The writ application of the petitioner is allowed, Annexure-1 is quashed and the respondent-State authorities are directed that in light of Hem Chandra Jhas decision, the respondents would be duty bound to treat 10 years of service rendered by the petitioner to be enough for the purposes of grant of pension by the State. They are directed to take steps for working out the pension of the petitioner and finalise the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication/ production of a copy of this order.