BABU RAM YADAV Vs. MD.ABDUL HASEEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions raise common issues of facts and iaw and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. The primary issue for our decision is whether or not the petitioners who were earlier employees of the District Board, and joined the services of the Bihar Government, are entitled to count their services rendered to the District Board for purpose of continuity of service and computation of post -retirement benefits after superannuation from service of the Bihar Government.

(2.) WE shall first take up CWJC No. 3711 of 2006. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was appointed as a Doctor by the District Board, Bhojpur, Ara, on 2.12.1975, which he continued to serve till the end of 1989. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner was on the recommendation of the Commission appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Civil Surgeon, initially for a period of six months by the State Government by Government notification dated 31.12.89 (Annexure -2). He was in due course confirmed in the medical service of the Bihar Government, and ultimately superannuated from the service of the Bihar Government with effect from 30.4.2003. It is relevant to state that the service under the District Board was non - pensionable and the petitioner had the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), whereas he joined pensionable service under the Bihar Government. In view of the letter of the State Government dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure -5), issued by the State Government in terms of Rule 203 (a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as &aposthe Rules&apos), the State Government relaxed the rigors of Rule 58 of the Rules with respect to employees of the District Board who had mid -way joined the services of the Bihar Government, and granted them the continuity of service for the purpose of computation of post -retirement benefits, provided such employee had refunded with interest the proceeds of CPF to the State Government. The petitioner had refunded the amount of CPF to the State Government on 10.11.2004. The petitioner&aposs representation for continuity of service and computation of post -retirement benefits after counting the service rendered to the District Board was rejected by the State Government by communication dated 3.7.2006 (Annexure -4), and impugned herein.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State of Bihar has opposed the writ and submits that, in view of Rule 58 of the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to count the services rendered to the District Board. He relies on the following orders/judgments of this Court:†'' (i) Judgment of the Supreme Court State of Bihar V/s. S.A. Hassan [2002(2) PLJR (SC) 295. (ii) Order dated 2.9.02 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 920 of 2002 (Mahendra Ram V/s. State of Bihar) (iii) Secretary, Finance (National Savings) Department V/s. Vinod Kumar & Ors. [2006(1) PLJR 269]. (iv) Judgment of one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) sitting singly, in Girija Devi V/s. State of Bihar [2010(1) PLJR 495].