Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 669 (PAT)

Murlidhar Rai v. State of Bihar

2014-06-17

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. On the basis of the pleadings in the present writ application, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis to the permanent post of Finishing Master under Bihar Cottage Industries Dye House, Gulzarbagh, Patna on 09.03.1977. The Bihar State Handloom, Powerloom and Handicraft Power Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Company, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner’s initial appointment was made by the Corporation. He superannuated in the year 2006 as Dyeing Superintendent while working under the Corporation. Nearly six years after his superannuation, he filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 17789 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to confirm and treat the entire services of the petitioner under the Corporation to be in Government service and thereafter to pay the petitioner the pension and other retiral benefits which are due in accordance with law. (ii) For issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, relief/ reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In view of the plea that the petitioner’s representation is pending before the Additional Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar in this regard, this writ application was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach to the said Authority alongwith a copy of his application and the order and the authority in turn was required to decide the matter by a speaking order within two months thereafter. 3. The competent authority i.e. the Additional Secretary, Department of Industries, Bihar, Patna vide his Memo No. 1490 dated 01.04.2013 passed the speaking order and rejected the petitioner’s claim. This order dated 01.04.2013 is under challenge in the present writ application. The petitioner in effect claims a declaration and direction that he should be treated as permanent employee of the State Government and he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits which a Government servant is entitled. The petitioner also seeks mandamus directing the Respondents to treat the entire services of the petitioner under the Corporation to be in Government service. 4. This application cannot be entertained for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner was admittedly appointed under the Corporation which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. There is no reason that why he should be treated as employee of the State Government. 4. This application cannot be entertained for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner was admittedly appointed under the Corporation which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. There is no reason that why he should be treated as employee of the State Government. Services under the Union and the States are governed by Part XIV of the Constitution of India. The Respondent Corporation is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is entirely a different entity from the State within the meaning of Part XIV of the Constitution of India. 5. In course of argument, it has transpired that Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable in case of employees of the Corporation. The petitioner was admittedly a part of that scheme. The petitioner cannot claim applicability of Bihar Pension Rules at this stage after having superannuated in the year 2006 itself. Even otherwise, I do not find any legal reasoning to apply Bihar Pension Rules with respect to employees of the Corporation. Similar issue was raised by some of the employees of Gandak Command Area Development Agency by filing C.W.J.C. No. 21105 of 2013. This Court by an order dated 24.03.2014 negated the claim with the following observations:- "The plea that in view of office order dated 10.08.1999, Bihar Pension Rules should be made applicable also cannot be sustained. This is for the two reasons. Firstly, this is an admitted fact that petitioners are covered by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Therefore, on the date of issuance of office order dated 10.08.1999, the petitioners had already remained under the scheme for quite some time. The said office order dated 10.08.1999 does not specifically refer to applicability of Bihar Pension Rules to the employees of GADA. The said office order has just referred to grant of facilities in terms of Government Rules/Regulations and Bihar Service Code till approval by the State Government of service conditions of the employees of GADA. Admittedly, service conditions of employees of GADA came to be approved w.e.f. 11.02.2010 and all the petitioners, by virtue of the provision under Rule 49 of the said Rules, would be treated to have been appointed under those rules and their service conditions would be governed by those rules." 6. Admittedly, service conditions of employees of GADA came to be approved w.e.f. 11.02.2010 and all the petitioners, by virtue of the provision under Rule 49 of the said Rules, would be treated to have been appointed under those rules and their service conditions would be governed by those rules." 6. This is to be noted that in present case the petitioner has claimed relief on the ground that in the first meeting of the Board of Directors of Bihar State handloom, Powerloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited held on 25.07.1974, it was resolved that until the Corporation framed its own rules, it might adopt Rules and Regulations of the Government of Bihar. However, the present case is entirely covered by the ratio of the order dated 24.03.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21150 of 2013. I, therefore, find this writ application to be meritless on the following grounds:- (a) The petitioner claims application of Bihar Pension Rules after more than six years of his superannuation from the service under the Corporation without raising any objection during his service period. (b) Admittedly, Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable in case of the employees of the Corporation. (c) The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by an order of this Court in case of Ramesh Prasad Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, C.W.J.C. No. 21105 of 2013, dated 24.3.2014. 7. This application is accordingly dismissed.