RAJENDRA LAI DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitioners, the common question involved is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioners as Extra Clerk in Registry office can be counted for computation of pensionary benefits.

(2.) PETITIONERS were initially working as Extra Clerk on selection and were being paid remuneration also from the general revenue of the State. Later they were promoted as temporary clerk and thereafter as permanent clerk. Petitioners after rendering service in the aforementioned capacities retired. Their past service as Extra Clerk were not counted for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits, as such, they filed writ applications.

(3.) SIMILAR question came up before this Court in the case of Upendra Prasad V/s. State of Bihat, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 822. This Court after elaborate discussion of the Rule contained in Bihar Registration Manual, 1946 and various Rules of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. held that the continuous service rendered by the petitioner as Extra Clerk till his appointment as temporary clerk are to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to pass appropriate order in exercise of the power under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules declaring that the services rendered as Extra Clerk from April, 1957 till the date of appointment as temporary clerk should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and also to ensure payment of consequential revised pension. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the State preferred L.P.A. No. 481 of 1997 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.8.1997 as has been admitted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. However, it appears that the State went to Supreme Court by filing S.L.R against the order passed in L.P.A. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said S.L.P has also been dismissed. In absence of full instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that he is not in a position to confirm as to whether the S.L.R has been dismissed or not.