STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA Vs. JAGDISH RAI, SON OF LATE SUDAMA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The Officers of the Police Department and the Government of Bihar have preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent to assail the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.9.2006 whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by accepting his alternative prayer that if his date of birth, as claimed by him before the authorities, is not accepted, he should be made to superannuate at the end of the year 2004 instead of w.e.f. 30.6.2004. The writ Court followed the judgment and order dated 4.8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6080 of 2003 (Balmiki Sharma V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.) whereunder a Government employee whose date of birth was recorded in the service book only by year of birth without mentioning the date and month was permitted the benefit of service for the whole year, i.e., till the last date of the year when he attained the age of superannuation. On that basis the order of the authorities dated 28.5.2004, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition was modified and the authorities were directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner until 31st December, 2004 and also to revise the pensionary benefits within a period of three months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that at the stage of admission of this appeal, the Division Bench stayed the impugned order on 17.8.2007 after noticing that matter requires interpretation of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 97 of the Bihar Finance Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us to the unreported judgment in the case of Balmiki Sharma V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition to show that in that case while deciding a similar dispute the learned Single Judge did not consider the aforesaid Rule 97(1) of the Rules. That submission appears to be correct and on that account we are required to apply ourselves to the aforesaid Rule and for this purpose the judgment in the case of Balmiki Sharma cannot be taken to be a good precedent.